Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

726 N.W.2d 371

State v. Lane

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 19, 2007

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 2007-01-19

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2017

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-01-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TERNUS, Chief Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I respectfully dissent. I believe the drugs found in Lane’s apartment must be suppressed under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Contrary to the conclusion of the plurality, the prior illegal entry into and search of the garage “provide[d] a significant lead in terms of indicating what other evidence [the police] ought to seek [and] where they ought to seek it.” 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.2(d), at 88 (4th ed.2004). A common sense analysis of the facts inevitably leads to the conclusion that law enforcement authorities used information they obtained in the illegal garage search to focus their attention on Lane’s residence in an effort to discover additional illegal substances. The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, I would reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

/726/nw2d/371 · .json · Public domain