from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Paul G.
Crawford, District Associate Judge.
Barden appeals her conviction for possession of
methamphetamine, first offense. AFFIRMED.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender (until withdrawal), and
Ashley Stewart, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.
Madrid police officer responded to a "domestic
situation" at a home occupied by Bobbi Barden, her
mother, and several children. The officer spoke to Barden and
her mother outside the home. After Barden went inside, the
officer engaged in a more exhaustive conversation with her
mother, then entered the home with the mother's consent.
inside, the officer asked Barden for consent to enter her
bedroom. Barden initially refused. She later equivocated on
the search of her room but agreed to a search of her purse.
The officer found methamphetamine inside the purse.
State charged Barden with possession of methamphetamine,
first offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5)
(2017). Barden moved to suppress the evidence gained in the
search of her purse. Following a hearing, the district court
denied that aspect of the suppression motion. The court tried
Barden on the minutes of testimony, found her guilty as
charged, and imposed judgment and sentence.
appeal, Barden contends the warrantless search of her purse
violated constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable
searches and seizures. See State v. Fleming, 790
N.W.2d 560, 563 (Iowa 2010) (enumerating rights).
Specifically, she argues her "consent to the search was
given involuntarily." See State v. Reinier, 628
N.W.2d 460, 465 (Iowa 2001) ("A warrantless search
conducted by free and voluntary consent does not violate the
Fourth Amendment."); see also State v.
Pettijohn, 899 N.W.2d 1, 25 (Iowa 2017)
("[Effective consent to a warrantless search establishes
a waiver of an individual's right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures under article I, section
Iowa Supreme Court has applied the federal standard for
effective consent: "whether the consent was voluntarily
given and not a result of duress or coercion, expressed or
implied." See State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767,
777 (Iowa 2011) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S. 218, 247-48 (1973)). Under that standard,
"[voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined
by all the circumstances." Id. The court has
"yet to consider whether a knowing and intelligent
waiver of the right to be free from warrantless searches and
seizures set forth in article I, section 8 is required to
establish the effectiveness of consent under the Iowa
Constitution." Pettijohn, 899 N.W.2d at 32
(citations omitted). In the absence of guidance on that
question, we decline Barden's invitation to adopt the
more stringent test.
evaluating the voluntariness of Barden's consent under
the federal standard, we may consider the following
personal characteristics of the defendant, such as age,
education, intelligence, sobriety, and experience with the
law; and features of the context in which the consent was
given, such as the length of detention or questioning, the
substance of any discussion between the defendant and police
preceding the consent, whether the defendant was free to
leave or was subject to restraint, and whether the
defendant's contemporaneous reaction to the search was
consistent with consent.
Pettijohn, 899 N.W.2d at 32 (citing United
States v. Jones,254 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2001). Our
review of the record is de novo. See State v. Smith,919 ...