from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D.
Coil, Judge, (motion to suppress) and Nathan A. Callahan,
District Associate Judge (trial and sentencing).
Moore appeals his conviction for carrying weapons, alleging
he was subjected to an unconstitutional stop and frisk.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Richard J. Bennett,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
Moore appeals his conviction for carrying weapons, a serious
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.4(3)
(2015). Moore challenges the district court's denial of
his motion to suppress, alleging he was subjected to a stop
and frisk in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and article 1, section 8 of the Iowa
Constitution. We affirm.
August 31, 2015, a 911 call was placed by a citizen informant
around 8:20 a.m. The citizen identified herself and said
"there [wa]s an older guy walking down the street"
and it "look[ed] like he had a sharp knife hanging out
the back of his pocket." Two officers responded and found
Moore, who matched the informant's description. At that
time, the officers were unable to see a knife on Moore's
person. Moore was walking within a few blocks of a school as
children were on their way to school, which both officers
testified caused them concern. One officer testified they
asked Moore if they could search his person and Moore refused
consent. When one officer informed Moore of the tip they had
received and that he was going to search Moore's person,
Moore told the officers he had a knife in his back pocket.
The officer searched Moore and found the knife Moore had
identified; the knife had a blade over six inches long. The
officers testified the pat down was based upon the nature of
the call, concern for the children in the area, and concern
for officer safety.
Standard and Scope of Review
Moore claims the district court violated his constitutional
rights in denying his motion to suppress, our review is de
novo. See State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 286
(Iowa 2017). "We independently evaluate the totality of
the circumstances found in the record, including the evidence
introduced at both the suppression hearing and at
trial." State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa
2015) (quoting State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 780
U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Constitution both grant
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. I, sec.
8. "We follow an independent approach in the application
of our state constitution." State v. McIver,
858 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 2015). "However, when a party
does not argue an independent approach, 'we ordinarily
apply the substantive federal standards but reserve the right
to apply the standard in a fashion different from federal
precedent.'" Id. (quoting State v.
Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 291-92 (Iowa 2013)).
conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable,
'subject only to a few specifically established and
well-delineated exceptions.'" State v.
Watts, 801 N.W.2d 845, 850 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). One such
exception exists when an "officer has a reasonable
suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal
activity may be afoot." State v. Kooima, 833
N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa 2013) ...