State of Iowa v. Shannah Rae Bankson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: July 13, 2023
• Docket: 22-0629
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0629 Filed July 13, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SHANNAH RAE BANKSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Rose Anne

Mefford, District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals the denial of her motion to suppress and subsequent

conviction. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ. 2

GREER, Judge.

Shannah Bankson appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to

suppress evidence, arguing the search exceeded the scope of her consent, and

her subsequent conviction based on the fruits of that search. Because we find her

consent was without restriction or limitation, we affirm.

On February 26, 2020, police received a call about “suspicious, burglary-

type activity at a mobile home park” involving a black truck. Officers Robert Houser

and Kenneth Reistroffer found the truck at a local convenience store. Two

individuals, Steven—who owned the truck—and Bankson, came out of the store

and started walking toward the truck before speaking with Officer Houser.1 They

admitted to being at the mobile home park together. Officer Houser asked if he

and Officer Reistroffer could look inside the truck for “specific items”; both Steven

and Bankson said “go ahead, yes,” and Bankson opened the truck doors for the

officers.

Officer Houser, Steven, and Bankson stepped away from the truck while

Officer Reistroffer and a third officer searched the truck. At that point, Bankson

asked, “What is it you guys are looking for exactly?” She followed that with, “Aren’t

we allowed to know ‘cause we let you guys search the vehicle without a search

warrant?” Officer Houser responded that they were involved in an investigation

and were looking for “items.” As the conversation progressed, Steven asked if the

officers planned to search the whole truck, and Bankson added “I mean, obviously,

whatever items you guys are looking for ain’t gonna fit in my fucking purse,

1The interaction was captured on Officer Houser’s body camera and the footage was admitted as evidence at the suppression hearing. 3

correct?” But, neither Steven nor Bankson asked officers to stop the search.

During the search, inside a bag Bankson later stipulated was hers, officers found

methamphetamine and various drug paraphernalia.

Bankson was charged with possession of a controlled substance—

methamphetamine—third offense. She filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the

vehicle search, arguing the search exceeded the scope of her consent and violated

both her federal and state constitutional rights against warrantless search and

seizure. The district court denied her motion, finding Bankson’s consent “could

[have] reasonably include[d her] backpacks or bags” and she did not “limit,

revoke[,] or withdraw her consent” to the search at any time.

Following a bench trial on a stipulated factual record, Bankson was found

guilty. She appeals, arguing the district court wrongly denied her motion to

suppress. “We review the denial of a motion to suppress on constitutional grounds

de novo.” State v. Abu Youm, 988 N.W.2d 713, 718 (Iowa 2023). “We give

deference to the district court’s fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the

credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by those findings.” State v.

McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 2004) (citation omitted).

It is undisputed that the officers did not have a search warrant and that

Bankson consented to at least some search of the truck and its contents.

“[C]onsensual searches are a well-established exception to the warrant

requirement and do not violate the Federal or State Constitution.” State v. Hauge,

973 N.W.2d 453, 461 (Iowa 2022). And our supreme court has “long interpreted

article I, section 8 coextensive with the Fourth Amendment in analyzing consent 4

searches,” using a similar structure to evaluate the voluntariness of the consent.2

Id. Contending that the State failed to recognize the Iowa Supreme Court’s “shift

in [its] approach to federal jurisprudence and Iowa Constitution article I, section 8

over the last twenty years,” Bankson asks us to depart from precedent and create

a new standard under the Iowa Constitution. But “[w]e are not at liberty to overrule

controlling supreme court precedent.” State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct.

App. 2014). So, we turn to established precedent to evaluate Bankson’s motion

to suppress.

“[C]onsent to a search may be limited or qualified,” and “[l]aw enforcement

authorities conducting the search are constrained by such limitations or

qualifications.” McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d at 30. “The scope of consent is

determined by what a ‘typical reasonable person [would] have understood by the

exchange between the officer and the suspect.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991)).

Here, Officer Houser asked for permission to look for “specific items” in the

truck—this terminology was vague and could include anything that might have

been stolen from the mobile home. Similarly, Bankson’s and Steven’s blanket,

unambiguous “yes” did not limit the search; it allowed the officers to search the

2 There are slight differences. For instance, in determining if the search is voluntary, as required under both constitutions, we use a similar, totality-of-the- circumstances structure to evaluate voluntariness as the federal case law, though with some distinction in the factors analyzed to make that determination. See Hague, 973 N.W.2d at 461–62; State v. Baldon, 829 N.W.2d 785, 823 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., specially concurring) (“Our independent search and seizure cases emphasize the traditional requirement of particularity to cabin government discretion in the search and seizure context and engage in realistic assessment of the voluntariness of consent.”). 5

whole truck and its contents. When Steven confirmed this, in the presence of

Bankson, she asked follow-up questions, but she did not explicitly place any

restrictions on the search or revoke the consent for the search. See State v.

Stanford, 474 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Iowa 1991) (“However, in order to limit, revoke[,]

or withdraw an initial grant of consent, the consenter must clearly inform the

appropriate official that the initial consent has been limited, withdrawn[,] or

revoked.”). Her consent was clear and without parameters.

Bankson also argues that the officers misled her because they said they

were looking for “specific items” before knowing if anything was stolen from the

mobile home. She argues this invalidates the consent because “[l]aw enforcement

agents may not obtain someone’s consent to search by misrepresenting that they

intend to look only for certain specified items and subsequently use that consent

to justify a general exploratory search.” United States v. Jackson, 598 F.3d 340,

348 (7th Cir. 2010). But the officers in this case did not lie to Bankson or Steven;

the officers informed them of concerns of burglary at the mobile home, asked for

permission to search the truck for evidence of stolen items, and then searched the

car for that evidence. Thus, we find Bankson consented to the search without

limitation.

We affirm the district court’s denial of Bankson’s motion to suppress and

her subsequent conviction.

AFFIRMED.