# State v. Lane

> Supreme Court of Iowa · January 19, 2007 · 726 N.W.2d 371

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517154

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James Alan LANE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** January 19, 2007
- **Citations:** 726 N.W.2d 371; 2007 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 5; 2007 WL 152491
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ternus
- **Judges:** Cady, Larson, Ternus, Wiggins, Hecht, Appel
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517154

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that although the short time lapse between the defendant's illegal arrest and his live-in girlfriend's consent to search their home suggests exploitation, the fact that the girlfriend did not know that the defendant had been illegally arrested reduced the significance …
- clarifying that evidence obtained by purported consent should be held admissible only if it is determined that the consent was both voluntary and not an exploitation of the prior illegality
- holding that defendant’s girlfriend consented to search, but no mention of claim under Iowa Constitution
- noting, as one factor weighing in favor of voluntariness, that a single officer requested consent to search and explained a consent form while other officers waited outside the room
- establishing that the analysis should be "whether the consent was obtained through exploitation or other sufficiently distinguishable means.”

## Opinion text

TERNUS, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517154. Public record. Not legal advice.