Iowa's State RICO Statute: Wreaking Havoc on Iowa's Criminal Justice System

• Author: Anna T. Stoeffler
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2017; B.A., The University of Dubuque, 2013
• Pages: 825-850

N4_STOEFFLER(DONOTDELETE) 12/27/20162:02PM



825

Iowa’s State RICO Statute:

Wreaking Havoc on Iowa’s Criminal

Justice System

Anna T. Stoeffler*

ABSTRACT: Iowa’s Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (“IOCCA”) was

patterned after the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act (“RICO”) and the Model Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act (“Model Act”).

Yet, it exceeds the reach and intent of these acts, especially by excluding key

provisions of the Model Act’s definition of “specified unlawful activity,”

which limited its application to racketeering offenses or offenses characteristic

of organized crime. This variation broadens the scope of people who can be

charged under the IOCCA—a Class B felony with a 25-year sentence—

thereby creating a prosecution tool to over-charge and intimidate defendants

into taking plea deals. The ability to charge virtually any individual who

commits two felonies in succession with an additional Class B felony for

ongoing criminal conduct undermines the intent of the federal RICO statute

and the Model Act to protect legitimate commerce from organized crime. It is

also contrary to the principles of fairness and justice that society expects of the

criminal justice system. This Note advocates that the Iowa Legislature

constrict the reach of the IOCCA so that it only criminalizes what it was truly

meant to combat: racketeering and organized crime. In doing so, this Note

examines the problems and inefficiencies of the IOCCA, as well as the RICO

statutes of other states, to determine the most effective approach to protect

legitimate commerce from organized crime.

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 827

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 830



* J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2017; B.A., The University of

Dubuque, 2013. Thank you to Joe Fraioli (Iowa Law Class of 2013) for introducing me to this

topic and assisting me with its development; to the staff of Volumes 101 and 102 of the Iowa Law

Review for their help on this Note; to Jenn Supple Bartels for her friendship; and to my parents

for their continued support. Finally, a special thank you to Ben Bartels, my pre-law advisor at the

University of Dubuque, for fueling my fire for the law, challenging me to become my best, and

encouraging me every step of the way.

826 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 102:825

A. FEDERAL RICO, THE MODEL ACT, AND THE RISE OF IOWA’S

STATE RICO STATUTE ............................................................. 830

B. THE IOCCA: A REFLECTION OF THE MODEL ACT, IF ONLY IN

A BROKEN MIRROR .................................................................. 832

C. STATE V. REED AND STATE V. OLSEN: A DYNAMIC DUO OF

IOWA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS WITH DYNAMIC EFFECTS ON

THE SCOPE OF IOWA’S ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT ACT ........ 834

III. MORE CRIMINAL ACTS FOR FINANCIAL GAIN, MORE PROBLEMS .. 837

A. A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF IOWA’S ONGOING CRIMINAL

CONDUCT ACT ........................................................................ 838

B. COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIME OR ABUSING THE “SPECIFIED

UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY” CATEGORY OF THE IOCCA FOR

PROSECUTORIAL GAIN? ........................................................... 839

1. The Technical Fouls of the IOCCA’s Broad Reach .... 840

2. Plea Considerations on Ongoing Criminal Conduct

for “Specified Unlawful Activity” .................................. 842

IV. THE IOWA LEGISLATURE SHOULD ADOPT A NEW STATE RICO

STATUTE ....................................................................................... 846

A. STEP ONE: PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ........................ 847

B. STEP TWO: REFORM THE DEFINITION OF “SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL

ACTIVITY” TO EXPRESSLY STATE WHICH CRIMES OR CATEGORIES

OF CRIMES CONSTITUTE ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT FOR

“SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY” ............................................ 848

C. STEP THREE: REQUIRE PROSECUTORS TO ALLEGE AT LEAST TWO

INTERRELATED ACTS OF “SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY”

ASSOCIATED WITH RACKETEERING OR ORGANIZED CRIME IN THEIR

CHARGING INFORMATION ........................................................ 849

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 850