Source: http://digitalcollections.uncc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p16033coll20/id/2217/
Timestamp: 2020-04-01 23:53:37
Document Index: 303242552

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 814', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§  2', '§ 814', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2']

Home Kelly Alexander, Sr. Papers Concerning the NAACP, 1948-1998 naacp-ms508-0210026-44
On September 30, 1987, David's appellate counsel filed his Application
for Discretionary Review pursuant to Iowa R. App. P. 201 and Iowa Code
§ 814.6(2)(d) (1987). In his application, David asks this court to hold that
Panora Municipal Code § 2.1-1.0301, on its face and as applied in this case,
violates the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments to the
United States Constitution; and art. I, §§ 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20 & 25 of the
Iowa Constitution, in that it infringes upon or denies freedom of speech, the
right to travel, the right to work, the right to assemble, the right to associate, the free exercise of religion, the parents' right to raise and supervise
their children, the equal protection of the laws, the right to privacy, the
liberty guarantee, the right to be free from vague and overly broad laws, the
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be
free and independent,  and to pursue and obtain safety and happiness.
On November 12, 1987, the Iowa Supreme Court granted David's request
for discretionary review.
C. DISPOSITION   IN THE TRIAL COURT.
On August 31, 1987, following trial de novo on appeal from the
Magistrate's decision, the Guthrie County District Court, the Honorable Arthur
E. Gamble presiding, found David guilty of violating Panora Municipal Code
§  2.1-1.0301.     (Tr.,   p.   18.)
In so holding, the court found not only that the curfew ordinance was
a reasonable exercise of the home rule power granted to cities by the State of
Iowa and the Iowa Code, but that the City ordinance was a reasonable exercise
of police power and that the city had the power to enact such an ordinance for
the health and welfare of the citizens of the City.     (Tr.,   pp.   18-20.)
Title naacp-ms508-0210026-44
OCR Transcript On September 30, 1987, David's appellate counsel filed his Application for Discretionary Review pursuant to Iowa R. App. P. 201 and Iowa Code § 814.6(2)(d) (1987). In his application, David asks this court to hold that Panora Municipal Code § 2.1-1.0301, on its face and as applied in this case, violates the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; and art. I, §§ 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20 & 25 of the Iowa Constitution, in that it infringes upon or denies freedom of speech, the right to travel, the right to work, the right to assemble, the right to associate, the free exercise of religion, the parents' right to raise and supervise their children, the equal protection of the laws, the right to privacy, the liberty guarantee, the right to be free from vague and overly broad laws, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be free and independent, and to pursue and obtain safety and happiness. On November 12, 1987, the Iowa Supreme Court granted David's request for discretionary review. C. DISPOSITION IN THE TRIAL COURT. On August 31, 1987, following trial de novo on appeal from the Magistrate's decision, the Guthrie County District Court, the Honorable Arthur E. Gamble presiding, found David guilty of violating Panora Municipal Code § 2.1-1.0301. (Tr., p. 18.) In so holding, the court found not only that the curfew ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the home rule power granted to cities by the State of Iowa and the Iowa Code, but that the City ordinance was a reasonable exercise of police power and that the city had the power to enact such an ordinance for the health and welfare of the citizens of the City. (Tr., pp. 18-20.)
Add tags for naacp-ms508-0210026-44
Post a Comment for naacp-ms508-0210026-44