Opinion ID: 1348878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Ex Post Facto Claim.

Text: The gist of the Society's first challenge is that the quoted sections of chapter 512A violate the ex post facto provisions of the federal and state constitutions. The federal Constitution contains two ex post facto clauses: one that applies to the states and one that applies to the federal government. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (No State shall ... pass any ... ex post facto Law.); U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 (No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed.). Our ex post facto provision simply provides that [n]o ... ex post facto law ... shall ever be passed. Iowa Const. art. I,§ 21. On a number of occasions this court has held that legislation violates the ex post facto clauses of both the federal and Iowa constitutions when it punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to [the] law at the time when the act was committed. State v. Soppe, 374 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Iowa 1985) (quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217 (1925)); State v. Anderson, 338 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Iowa 1983); see also In re Ponx, 276 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Iowa 1979); State v. Quanrude, 222 N.W.2d 467, 469-70 (Iowa 1974). We recently applied this rule in State v. Kaster, 469 N.W.2d 671, 673-74 (Iowa 1991). There, while the defendant's criminal case for fishing violations was under submission, the legislature increased the fine that could be imposed for the number of fish illegally taken. The district court on sentencing used the enhanced fine. We recognized the enhanced fine as punitive which brought it clearly within the rule prohibiting ex post facto enhancement of fines. Kaster, 469 N.W.2d at 674. The only question involved here is whether or not the statute punishes an act which was legal when committed. We believe the Society is not being punished for any acts prior to the enactment of chapter 512A in 1967. Only its acts since that date are being challenged. The United States Supreme Court long ago determined that the ex post facto clauses of the federal Constitution do not prevent a legislature from imposing a penalty for continuing once lawful conduct that the legislature has subsequently declared illegal. Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188, 193, 45 S.Ct. 264, 265, 69 L.Ed. 568, 570 (1925) (statute making possession of liquor lawfully acquired unlawful is not ex post facto so far as it affects continued possession in the future).