# State of Iowa v. Mar'yo D. Lindsey Jr.

> Supreme Court of Iowa · June 24, 2016 · 881 N.W.2d 411

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824331

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Mar’yo D. LINDSEY Jr., Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** June 24, 2016
- **Citations:** 881 N.W.2d 411; 2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 76
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** Appel, Mansfield, Waterman, Wiggins
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9824331

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding “school officials were operating on a ‘common-sense conclusio[n] about human behavior’ upon which ‘practical people’— including government officials—are entitled to rely” in searching student 9 athlete’s bag with history of gun and drug possession after he expressed…
- recognizing " 'common-sense conclusio[ns] about human behavior' upon which 'practical people'-including government officials-are entitled to rely" (citations omitted)
- finding that an injured football player’s “unprompted concern about his bag ‘raised a red flag’ ” for Fourth Amendment purposes
- noting “unpublished decisions of the court of appeals do not constitute binding authority” but may help “define the issues” before the district court
- noting “unpublished decisions of the court of appeals do not constitute binding authority on appeal” but may help “define the issues”

## Opinion text

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, *429 the 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824331. Public record. Not legal advice.