Court Opinion

ID: 9824331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:39:47.460417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:41.590044
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Justice
(concurring specially).
I join the court in affirming Lindsey’s conviction and sentence and the denial of his motion to suppress. I also join the court’s opinion subject only to the following exception.
I do not agree that an argument under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution has been preserved. It is true that Lindsey’s motion to suppress did mention “the Iowa Constitution”’ once (although not article I, section 8). However, the district court’s ruling cited only the Fourth Amendment and Lindsey did not seek to expand, that ruling. Moreover, on appeal Lindsey mentioned article I, section 8 only twice in passing in his brief and did nothing to develop a state constitutional argument. Further, at oral argument before the court of appeals, Lindsey’s counsel conceded that Lindsey’s appeal could be resolved “by examining the Fourth' Amendment exclusively.” Consequently, *429the court of appeals did n,ot consider article I, section 8. And in oral argument before our court, nobody talked about the Iowa Constitution. This can be verified by listening to the publicly available recording. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment and in the court’s opinion except, as noted here. . .
WATERMAN, J., joins this special concurrence.