Court Opinion

ID: 9692740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:02:59.947705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:36.558099
License: Public Domain

DONIELSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully, but vigorously, dissent. The majority relies heavily on language from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed. 889 (1968) and Berkemer v. McCarthy, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), to support its reversal of this case. I believe such reliance is misplaced. Terry involved a confrontation on a public street between a citizen and a police officer who was investigating suspicious circumstances. 392 U.S. at 4, 88 S.Ct. at 1871, 20 L.Ed.2d at 896. In McCarty, a highway patrol officer stopped a car after observing it weaving on a highway. — U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 3142, 82 L.Ed.2d at 324. The traffic stop was held to be analogous to a Terry stop. Id. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d at 334. The principle to be derived from these cases is that under appropriate circumstances a person may be detained briefly in order to investigate the circumstances which provoked suspicion. However, because there is a fine line between a random stop and a Terry stop, the rights of the investigating officers are appropriately limited to stopping a person and frisking him. While an officer may ask questions, the detainee need not respond. McCarty, — U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d at 334.
Contrary to the majority’s opinion, however, I do not believe the principles set forth in Terry and McCarty are applicable here. The fact situation before this court is unquestionably distinguishable from a Terry stop. Law officers entered a private club pursuant to a proper, unchallenged search warrant in order to seize property in connection with illegal liquor sales and prostitution. In furtherance of the legitimate investigation, the officers requested the defendant’s identification because it was a private club and they believed he may have had information as to criminal activities at the establishment. Since the defendant was present on the very night law officers detected criminal activity, it is likely the defendant would be called before a grand jury or needed as a witness. It is not illogical to assume a person present at a private club, which is being investigated for liquor and prostitution, is a member of that club and hence a possible witness before a grand jury in one fashion or another. The defendant’s refusal to identify himself clearly obstructed the investigation in this respect. This is not a situation where persons in a public place were randomly asked for identification for no apparent reason. Nor is it a situation where the officers merely had the reasonable and articulable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop. The officers had met the standards of a search warrant and were legally and properly at a non-public establishment. Iowa Code § 719.1 (1983). In such a situation, the balance between the right of conducting a legitimate investigation and protection of individual privacy falls in favor of allowing the officers to carry out a traditional investigative function in an unhindered fashion.
The majority indicates that the defendant did not know the “nature of the investigation” and the “officer’s status was never made clear before he was arrested.” I am not aware of any law that indicates that the constabulary is required to inform witnesses or a possible defendant of the nature of any investigation which is being conducted. Nor can I agree that the officer’s status was not made clear. One of the three officers was a uniformed patrolman. It seems to me that this would make his status quite clear.
Accordingly, I would affirm the conviction.