Opinion ID: 2169311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Double Jeopardy ClaimError Preservation.

Text: Issues not raised before the district court, including constitutional issues, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997). Garwick asserts that he adequately raised the constitutional challenge to his revocation in his petition for judicial review by alleging that the DOT's decision was in violation of [a] statutory provision [and was] made upon unlawful procedure. This language comes directly from Iowa Code section 17A.19(8) (1997), which enumerates general reasons that provide a basis for the district court to take corrective action on judicial review. Garwick's allegation in his petition for judicial review is far too unspecific to preserve a double jeopardy challenge. See Office of Consumer Advocate v. Iowa State Commerce Comm'n, 465 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Iowa 1991) (holding that an issue must be raised with sufficient precision to alert the [court] to the error being claimed). Not only did the allegation in Garwick's petition for judicial review fail to mention that the claimed illegality was based on the Double Jeopardy Clause, it did not even identify the violation as being constitutional in nature. Additionally, in cases seeking review of agency action, [c]onstitutional issues must be raised at the agency level to be preserved for judicial review. Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 688 (Iowa 1994) (emphasis added). There is nothing in the record before us that indicates the double jeopardy issue was raised in the proceedings before the DOT. Therefore, Garwick has failed to preserve this issue for our review.