Opinion ID: 1832834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Constitutionality of Iowa Code Section 453B.9.

Text: If a statute is amenable to two interpretationsone that would make it constitutional and the other that would make it unconstitutional, we interpret it in the former manner. See 2A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 45.11, at 70-71 (2000 rev.). When possible, statutory provisions should be construed in such a way as to avoid unconstitutionality rather than simply void them on the basis of an interpretation which renders them constitutionally infirm. If the law is reasonably open to two constructions, one that renders it unconstitutional and one that does not, the court must adopt the interpretation that upholds the law's constitutionality. It would also be preferable to construe the statute to support constitutionality rather than to rewrite or try to improve the statute in some other way. Id. To construe section 453B.9 to allow the search of a residence without any showing that the assessment is in jeopardy and without any showing of reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting the search ( O'Connor, 480 U.S. at 723, 107 S.Ct. at 1500, 94 L.Ed.2d at 726) would doom the statute under the Fourth Amendment. We decline to construe section 453B.9 that broadly; while the expedited drug tax collection procedure might be permitted under other circumstances, when the Fourth Amendment is not implicated ( see G.M. Leasing Corp., 429 U.S. at 354, 97 S.Ct. at 630, 50 L.Ed.2d at 545), it cannot be used under the circumstances of this case to search a premises protected by the Fourth Amendment. We need not decide whether section 453B.9, in other circumstances, may constitutionally allow jeopardy assessments for the purpose of locating assets or otherwise aiding in the collection of taxes. We agree with the conclusion by the Indiana court, which limited the holding in Adams: Our holding that the search of Defendant's home was unreasonable is a limited one. In this case, government officers intruded upon the privacy of a home. Our conclusion that this intrusion was unreasonable does not affect the Department's ability to seize assets found in less private contexts. In fact, G.M. Leasing endorsed the government's power to institute tax liens, seize assets found in public places, and take other basic measures to collect taxes so long as they do not involve warrantless intrusions into the home. Adams, 762 N.E.2d at 746. For the reasons discussed, the administrative search violated Carter's Fourth Amendment rights, and the fruits of that search must be suppressed. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand for a new trial. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED. All justices concur except HECHT and APPEL, JJ., who take no part.