The Need for 'Knowing': Why the Iowa Supreme Court Should Reject Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

• Author: Alexandra L. Pratt
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; B.A., The University of Kansas, 2011
• Pages: 1327-1355

1327

The Need for “Knowing”:

Why the Iowa Supreme Court Should

Reject Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Alexandra L. Pratt



ABSTRACT: More than 40 years ago, the United States Supreme Court

decided Schneckloth v. Bustamonte. The decision, imposing a “totality of

the circumstances” test to evaluate the voluntariness of consent to a search,

remains the binding federal standard and the subject of pervasive criticism.

In addition, consent continues to be law enforcement’s most common method

to evade the constitutional requirements of both a warrant and probable

cause. In its wake, state supreme courts remain free to independently interpret

analogous state provisions and to either adhere to, or provide greater search

protection than, the “totality of the circumstances” standard. Iowa has not yet

resolved which standard article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution

necessitates. This Note argues that five recent Iowa Supreme Court decisions

considering the relationship between the federal and state search provisions

demonstrate a perceptible shift away from the federal model. The analytical

faults of Schneckloth, coupled with the numerous benefits and increased

protections that a heightened standard provides, further dictate that the Iowa

Supreme Court should adopt a “knowing” standard. Under this test, a

suspect must know of his right to refuse consent to a search. Finally, this Note

suggests that written consent forms, which either the legislative or executive

branch could implement, provide the most effective method of enforcing this

heightened standard of proof.

 J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; B.A., The University of

Kansas, 2011. I would like to thank the writers and editors of Volumes 99 and 100 of the Iowa

Law Review for their hard work and keen edits. To my family—particularly my parents—and to

my friends, thank you for your never-ending support. And to Christopher Sorenson, thank you

for your encouragement, advice, and for being the best part of each day.

1328 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:1327

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1329

II. THE HISTORY OF VOLUNTARY CONSENT AND THE FOURTH

AMENDMENT ............................................................................... 1332

A. LACK OF A CONTROLLING STANDARD CREATES CONFUSION AMONG

COURTS ................................................................................ 1333

B. SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE: IMPOSITION OF “TOTALITY OF

THE CIRCUMSTANCES” ........................................................... 1334

C. POST-SCHNECKLOTH: “TOTALITY” EXTENDED ...................... 1337

III. STATE SUPREME COURTS RESPOND: THREE THREADS EMERGE . 1338

A. ADHERENCE TO SCHNECKLOTH ............................................ 1338

B. STRIKING A BALANCE: A MORE DEMANDING “TOTALITY”

STANDARD ............................................................................ 1339

C. ESCHEWING “TOTALITY” FOR “KNOWING” .............................. 1340

IV. IOWA AND THE NEED FOR “KNOWING”........................................ 1342

A. IOWA SUPREME COURT RECONSIDERS BLIND ADHERENCE TO THE

FEDERAL MODEL ................................................................... 1342

1. Reiterating the Ability and Importance of Independent

Interpretation of the Iowa Search Provision ............. 1345

2. Providing Greater Search Protection Under Article I,

Section 8 Than the Fourth Amendment Affords ..... 1347

B. BENEFITS OF A “KNOWING” STANDARD ................................... 1348

1. Additional Guidance for Law Enforcement, Prosecutors,

and Courts ................................................................... 1350

2. Limiting Law Enforcement’s Ability to Benefit from a

Citizen’s Ignorance of Rights Possessed .................... 1351

3. Uniformity and Stability in All Search Contexts ....... 1351

C. WRITTEN CONSENT FORMS PROVIDE THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD

OF ENFORCEMENT.................................................................. 1352

V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 1354