Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Andersen

Court of Appeals of Iowa

February 5, 2014

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WAYNE HARRIS ANDERSEN SR., Defendant-Appellant

Editorial Note:

This decision has been referenced in a "Decisions Without Published Opinions" table in the North Western Reporter.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Humboldt County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge. Wayne Andersen Sr. appeals the district court's denial of his motion to modify the term of his probation imposing travel restrictions by his probation officer.

Jennifer Bonzer of Johnson and Bonzer, Fort Dodge, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, and Jonathan Beaty, County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.

OPINION

DOYLE, P.J.

Wayne Andersen was convicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(8) (2011), and one count of failure to affix a drug stamp, in violation of section 453B.12. Andersen was placed on supervised probation. One term of his probation provided he was not to leave his county of residence without the permission of his probation officer. Andersen filed a motion for hearing, challenging the condition as " arbitrary and capricious" with " no rehabilitative purpose." The State resisted.

A hearing on Andersen's motion was held, and his probation officer testified. She explained that as a part of the standard probation agreement Andersen was required to call her and let her know why he wanted to leave his county of residence. However, she testified Andersen was permitted to be in both Pocahontas and Humboldt County based upon his city of residence. This enabled him to go to his bank and the post office without first having to call for permission. Furthermore, he was not required to call for permission to travel to Webster County for grocery shopping. For activities other than normal everyday errands, she testified Andersen was to notify her of his intended travel, explaining:

I reviewed his criminal history. I have to supervise him. He's going to be out of the county, I need to know the reasons why. He has several horrendous criminal charges, and I want to make sure I know why he's going out of town, if he can afford to go out of town, and what the reasoning is for that.

If she was not available to take a call from Andersen, he was still able to travel, but he was to leave her a message about his travel plans, and she would, at his next probation meeting, advise him whether she would authorize such travel in the future.

She said the requirement that Andersen contact her before leaving the county was reasonably connected to the crime for which he was on probation, stating:

When we do a risk assessment on a client when we're supervising them, we make sure that we know who they are. We make sure what their patterns are. And he is a disability at this point. He wants to go to flea markets. He wants to be self-employed. And those are things that we discuss to make sure they're something that we approve of.
His charges are selling hydro. He's got a sex abuse charge. He's got a firearm charge and a theft charge. Like I said, I just got him on probation. I need to know my client, what he does and where he's going and what those ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.