Iowa Code §123.47 (PAULA, 2010 Updated Statute)

**Please note this is the State level charge, and not the Iowa City ordinance**

123.47   Persons under eighteen years of age, persons eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years of age, and persons twenty-one years of age and older.

1.  A person shall not sell, give, or otherwise supply alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that person to be under legal age.
2.  A person or persons under legal age shall not purchase or attempt to purchase, or individually or jointly have alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer in their possession or control; except in the case of liquor, wine, or beer given or dispensed to a person under legal age within a private home and with the knowledge, presence, and consent of the parent or guardian, for beverage or medicinal purposes or as administered to the person by either a physician or dentist for medicinal purposes and except to the extent that a person under legal age may handle alcoholic beverages, wine, and beer during the regular course of the person’s employment by a liquor control licensee, or wine or beer permittee under this chapter.
3.  a.  A person who is eighteen, nineteen, or twenty years of age, other than a licensee or permittee, who violates this section regarding the purchase of or attempt to purchase alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer, or possessing or having control of alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer, commits the following:
(1)  A simple misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation under section 805.8C, subsection 7.
(2)  A second offense shall be a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars. In addition to any other applicable penalty, the person in violation of this section shall choose between either completing a substance abuse evaluation or the suspension of the person’s motor vehicle operating privileges for a period not to exceed one year.
(3)  A third or subsequent offense shall be a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars and the suspension of the person’s motor vehicle operating privileges for a period not to exceed one year.
b.  The court may, in its discretion, order the person who is under legal age to perform community service work under section 909.3A, of an equivalent value to the fine imposed under this section.
c.  If the person who commits a violation of this section is under the age of eighteen, the matter shall be disposed of in the manner provided in chapter 232.
4.  Except as otherwise provided in subsections 5 and 6, a person who is of legal age, other than a licensee or permittee, who sells, gives, or otherwise supplies alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to a person who is under legal age in violation of this section commits a serious misdemeanor punishable by a minimum fine of five hundred dollars.
5.  A person who is of legal age, other than a licensee or permittee, who sells, gives, or otherwise supplies alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to a person who is under legal age in violation of this section which results in serious injury to any person commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
6.  A person who is of legal age, other than a licensee or permittee, who sells, gives, or otherwise supplies alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to a person who is under legal age in violation of this section which results in the death of any person commits a class “D” felony.
7.  Upon the expiration of two years following conviction for a violation of subsection 2 or of a similar local ordinance, a person may petition the court to expunge the conviction, and if the person has had no other criminal convictions, other than local traffic violations or simple misdemeanor violations of chapter 321 during the two-year period, the conviction shall be expunged as a matter of law. The court shall enter an order that the record of the conviction be expunged by the clerk of the district court. Notwithstanding section 692.2, after receipt of notice from the clerk of the district court that a record of conviction has been expunged for a violation of subsection 2, the record of conviction shall be removed from the criminal history data files maintained by the department of public safety. An expunged conviction shall not be considered a prior offense for purposes of enhancement under subsection 3 or under a local ordinance unless the new violation occurred prior to entry of the order of expungement.

Cedar County, Iowa Lawyer

Many Cedar County, Iowa cases originate on the stretch of Interstate 80 between Iowa City and the Quad Cities.

When someone is stopped on this section of the road by the Iowa State Patrol, the case will be filed at the Cedar County Courthouse, 10 minutes north of the interstate in Tipton, Iowa.

Unlike the local sheriff (who would take defendants to the jail that night), when the Iowa State Patrol files an indictable charge, they generally do not want to take the defendant to jail.  The Trooper wants to stay on the road and conduct further stops.

This is both good and bad.

It’s good because the defendant does not have to go to jail that night.  It’s bad because they are left scrambling for an attorney in a small town they have never been to and know nothing about.

That is why our office in Iowa City handles cases in Cedar County (as well as many of the other jurisdictions surrounding Iowa City/Johnson County).

Each jurisdiction handles their cases slightly differently than the surrounding areas.  It is important to hire a local lawyer that is familiar with the local procedure and the likely outcomes of the case.

Thompson Law Office is experienced in Cedar County cases, such as OWI/DUI and drug charges.

A local attorney will help a defendant receive the lightest penalty for the case, and will help avoid any unnecessary trips to the courthouse.  (It is still likely the defendant will have to appear at least once, however.  But we try to limit it to that.)

For someone passing through, and especially if they have had their license revoked due to a pending OWI, then saving trips to the courthouse is tremendous benefit.

If you have been stopped and charged with an indictable offense in Cedar County, Iowa, please give us a call at 319 354-1630.

We can provide a free consultation on your case and point you in the right direction to resolving the criminal charge as quickly and with as little inconvenience as possible.

A Stay at the Hope House

A local resident has provided a very well-written, witty and insightful story about his stay at the local halfway house. This story was published in the Little Village newspaper: High Crimes.

Unbiased Jury Not Available for Pot Case

In a Missoula, Montana case, a jury was being selected for a trial in a marijuana charge. To be selected as a juror, that person must show that they are unbiased (one way or the other) in order to sit on the panel.

This is the “fair and impartial” jury that is a right of every defendant.

Well, in this Montana case, an unbiased panel could not be selected because the potential jurors felt that the local marijuana laws were unfair.

In my last drug case that I took to trial, I found one juror that felt she could not be fair and partial because she felt that marijuana should be legalized. She was stricken from the panel by the State’s attorney, and a new person took her place.

Unfortunately for the defendant, she was the only one in the room that expressed her feelings that way, so we were not able to reach a plea bargain as the defendant in the Montana case did.

The Montana case is a nice example of how “the people” can keep an unfair law from convicting a citizen. If a law is truly felt to be unfair, we have one last protection from the government – a jury of our peers.

This case reminds me the following quote:

“The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana.”
— Norman Maclean (A River Runs Through It)

DJK Prediction

For those who don’t know, Iowa football player Derrell Johnson-Koulianos aka “DJK” was arrested recently on various drug charges. It is one of several recent pieces of bad news involving the Hawkeyes.

DJK was charged with six drug-related counts: 4 Possession of Controlled Substances charges, 1 Unlawful Possession of Prescription Drugs charge, and the previously-criticized “drug house” law.

So what will the outcome be in this case? Despite what certain message boards have been saying, the County Attorney’s Office is probably not going to make an example of DJK. Nor will they try to beat up Alfredo Parrish, DJK’s newly-hired big-name defense attorney.

They are probably just groaning and rolling their eyes.

The County Attorney’s Office is busy, and they have better things to do than treat this case any differently than any other case involving the same facts and same criminal history. I’m sure they would prefer that instead of DJK being caught in this situation, it was some no-name student athlete on the club rugby team.

But, the County Attorney’s Office has to play the cards they have been dealt, and balance the various interests that assault their office everyday.

Foremost, they deal with public opinion. Some members of the public will think that making an example out of DJK will help curb criminal behavior. Others want to see him exonerated today and back practicing with the team.

They must deal with pressure from the Iowa City Police Department, who usually feels that criminals are let off too easily.

The County Attorney must also deal with the pressure from the Defense, which could spend valuable resources by drawing the case out over years like Mr. Parrish has done with the awful Satterfield/Everson case.

Well, what should happen in a case like this? Exactly what would happen if instead of being DJK, it was the regular Joe next door.

Let’s look at the charges themselves:

Drug House, that means that you allow people to use or sell drugs in your apartment. DJK was not the player in that situation. DJK was a user, so this charge will be dismissed.

Possession of Controlled Substances – We’ve got 4 charges here. Marijuana, Cocaine, unusual prescription drug, and generic Valium. The prescriptions were drugs that DJK could likely have gotten after seeing a doctor. He just made the stupid mistake of taking them from his “friends.”

Nonetheless, this is the bulk of the case. DJK will have to plead to two of the counts, and the other two will be dismissed.

As far as the Unlawful Possession of Prescription Drug charge, it is hard to guess. Probably a plea will be required in order to see the Drug House charge go away.

That leaves my guess with a plea of guilty to 3 charges, all serious misdemeanors.

DJK does not have a criminal history. Therefore he deserves a chance to correct this mistake by following the rules of probation. So he will not receive a deferred judgment on each charge. Likely he will get one or two deferred, and the other suspended with something like 180 days over his head.

That means he will leave this with the chance to expunge the deferred charges, and the chance to avoid all future jail time with the suspended charge.

The real test will be if he can follow the rules of probation, which will include random drug testing and lack of further criminal involvement. And the real problem there, is DJK wants to graduate and leave to the NFL draft, something he cannot do while under supervised probation.

So let’s wait another month for the Trial Information to be filed, and see what happens.

Johnson County Marijuana Diversion Program

The Johnson County Attorney’s Office started a marijuana diversion program in July of 2010.  We are starting to see how this program is playing out for various defendants.

The program is fantastic for those who qualify.  Previously defense attorneys would have to struggle to get a charge dismissed, and there was only a chance of dismissal when the defendant possessed less than one gram of marijuana.  With the diversion program, the amount has been raised.  I would not like to publicize the amount, because it certainly is subject to change.  And I would hate for someone to rely upon that figure and subsequently not be eligible.

Also, the program is completely discretionary.  The main factors for consideration are a defendant’s criminal history, the circumstances of the offense and any prior diversion program enrollment.  However, the county attorney’s office reserves the right to disqualify someone without a given reason.  I would imagine that someone relying on the diversion program as a “free pass” would not be treated as kindly as an “ignorant” defendant.

Another advantage of the diversion program over prior dispositions is that a paraphernalia charge may sometimes be dismissed along with the possession charge.  Previously a dismissal of the possession would require a conviction on the paraphernalia.  Often times we wondered if the dismissal was worth it, when a deferred judgment could be gained on the possession and a dismissal would result on the paraphernalia.

Now those worries are in the past, because the diversion program has ushered in a new wave of outcomes for the local defense bar.

Defendants that qualify for the program will be required to attend their arraignment hearing in person.  They must fill out the application for the diversion program. They must waive their right to a speedy trial, and agree to push their arraignment date out 120 days.  They must seek out an attend and approved marijuana diversion course and substance abuse evaluation.  A clean urinalysis must be produced.  They must pay $100.00 to the Court.  And finally, the defendant must avoid all criminal involvement for the duration of the case, usually 90-120 days following arraignment.

And if the defendant is successful at this, the charge will be dismissed.

Obviously this is a great program for anyone busted for possession of marijuana in Iowa City.

Johnson County Drug Court Information

Drug Courts are fantastic programs considering any political standpoint you may hold. Not only do they improve the livelihood and well-being of offenders, but the State saves a considerable amount of taxpayer money and strain on community resources.

Compared to a defendant given a prison sentence, Drug Court clients are less likely to re-offend and relapse. This protects both the community from crime and reduces the cost on the local police and the local court system.

Drug Courts would be worth an extra cost, but the truth is that they actually save money. The strain is reduced on community healthcare services is reduced, thereby saving $12 for every $1 invested in a drug court program.

For more details, and to meet the local members of the Johnson County and Linn County drug courts, please follow the link below:

Johnson County Drug Treatment Court

Mark Thompson Appointed to Drug Court

The Johnson County Drug Treatment Court is a prison-alternative program for serious drug offenders.

The panel on the Drug Court consists of a District Court Judge, a Johnson County prosecutor, a defense attorney, members of the Department of Corrections, a substance abuse counselor and a mental health provider.

A vacancy was created in June, 2010 when defense attorney Paul Miller was appointed as a Judge of the Sixth Judicial District. At that point Mark Thompson began to serve in Paul Miller’s position on the panel on an interim basis.

A selection process was conducted, and in August, Mark Thompson was chosen. The contract was finalized in September.

New Tailgating Rules

The University of Iowa would like to limit the amount of alcohol consumption on football game days. They are instituting several new rules which would affect tailgating behavior.

As noted in the link above, the University has set time limits on when tailgating must end, and intends to enforce the Open Container law which traditionally has been ignored on the west side of the river during tailgating hours.

The Johnson County Sheriff, however, is not thrilled about these rules. He understands the burden additional arrests place on the already-overcrowded jail. He voiced his concern to the Press-Citizen.

Despite the Sheriff’s disapproval, be warned that the new rules can be enforced. Do not be one of the unlucky individuals to get an Open Container or even a Trespass charge on opening day.

DUI Ruling in NJ Makes National Headlines

In a case decided this week, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that when police officers invoke New Jersey’s implied consent law, and request a breath sample from a motorist they suspect was driving while intoxicated, officers must inform the motorist of the consequences of refusing the test. Further, if the person does not speak English, the statement used to explain those consequences must be given in a language the person speaks or understands.

In State v. German Marquez, police officers responded to the scene of a two-car accident and approached the defendant, German Marquez, who was one of the drivers. Marquez did not respond to requests for identification in English; the officers asked in Spanish and he produced his credentials. The officers noted that he smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and was unstable on his feet. They arrested him, believing he was under the influence. He did not understand requests to perform field sobriety tests.

At the police station, Marquez was read in English the standard implied consent statement, an 11-paragraph document informing drivers that, among other things, cooperating with the test is required by law, and refusing to consent results in license revocation. Marquez shook his head in response, and stated in Spanish that he did not understand. He was charged with driving while intoxicated and with refusing to submit to a breath test.

At the trial court level, he was found guilty of both charges. Marquez appealed his conviction, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The appellate panel noted that there was no requirement that the implied consent statement be translated into another language.

The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed, and reversed the defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test conviction. The Court noted that the New Jersey implied consent statute, which states that any person who operates a motor vehicle on a public road gives their consent to the taking of a breath sample, also requires that a police officer “inform the person” of the consequences of refusing the test. (Iowa has a similar law: 321J.8 “Statement of Officer,” which states that “A person who has been requested to submit to a chemical test shall be advised by a peace officer” of the consequences of refusing the test.)

The Court held that in the context of the implied consent law, the word “inform” means that police officers must convey information in a language the person speaks or understands. If a person does not hear or understand English, some other effort must be made.

New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission has arranged for certified translated versions of the standard implied consent statement to be prepared, in written and audio form, in nine foreign languages. Perhaps Iowa will decide to follow suit?