Opinion ID: 2011298
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: In petitioner-appellant's brief and argument as a statement of error relied on for reversal this appears:

Text: Petitioner was subjected to such illegal search of his property and seizure of evidence which was used at trial against him so as to entitle him to immediate release from imprisonment at the hands of respondent. In his brief point counsel admits that no authority exists to substantiate the proposition. Counsel is correct. The authority is to the contrary. In Ford v. State, supra, loc. cit. 139, 138 N.W.2d loc. cit. 118, this appears: Habeas corpus may not be used in lieu of appeal. In the case at bar the trial court's Findings of Fact included the following: Petitioner was arrested on the burglary charge on February 14, 1964. On that same day a search warrant was issued authorizing a search of petitioner's hotel room. A search of petitioner's hotel room was made and certain items of property were seized. Petitioner's testimony raises a suspicion that the police actually made a search of his hotel room before obtaining the search warrant, but petitioner failed to establish such to be a fact by a preponderance of the evidence. John F. Siebenmann, a Cedar Rapids lawyer, was appointed by the Court to represent petitioner. A jury trial was held. The items of property seized in the search of petitioner's hotel room were introduced into evidence. Mr. Siebenmann objected to the introduction of some of the items on the sole ground that the evidence had not established that those items had any connection with the burglary in question. The court overruled the objection. Neither Mr. Siebenmann nor petitioner herein made any objection on the ground that the search was unlawful. The jury found petitioner to be guilty. Subsequently, Mr. Siebenmann filed a motion for new trial, but did not allege therein that the search of petitioner's hotel room was unlawful. These findings of fact are not challenged. A comparable situation appeared in Dunek v. District Court, 258 Iowa 673, 675, 676, 140 N.W.2d 372, 374. We held that assuming, arguendo, that the search was without authority the petitioner might not later complain. The right to suppress evidence may be waived and objection to evidence must be timely. [Citations] Petitioner's present complaint is untenable. It is of doubtful merit and is not timely. The case is Affirmed. GARFIELD, C.J., and LARSON, MOORE, STUART, MASON and LeGRAND, JJ., concur. RAWLINGS and BECKER, JJ., concur in the result.