Kevin Hobbs, Attorney at Law

Kevin Hobbs, Attorney at Law Practicing statewide in Iowa in both state and federal court specializing in criminal defense.

02/26/2020

United States v. Jimenez, 2016 WL3556810 (N.D. Cal). Only one part of an AR-15 receiver is not a firearm. This may have implications for anyone charged as a felon in possession of a firearm under federal law contrary to 18 U.S.C. 922 or possibly under Iowa State law code section 724.26 (no Iowa cases at this time). The ATF defines a firearm receiver in code section 921(a)(3) as, "that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechlock, "and" firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."

However, if you possess only one part of an AR-15 receiver it does not meet the ATF definition because the AR-15 has upper and lower receivers. The upper receiver houses the bolt and enables insertion of the barrel. The lower receiver provides housing for the hammer and the firing mechanism.

10/12/2019

A recent U.S. Supreme Court fi****ms decision to consider is Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019).

By a 7 - 2 majority the justices decided that the government must prove that a person knowingly possessed a firearm and knew they were not allowed to possess the firearm.
This case dealt with the federal statute 18 USC 924(a)(2) making it illegal for felons and for a person who is not legally in the US to knowingly possess a firearm. The government argued they did not have to prove that the individual knew they were in the country illegally. Instead, the government argued they only had to prove that the person in the country illegally knowingly possessed a firearm. The Supreme Court disagreed and held the government has to prove "knowingly" on both elements.

This case just came down but I would argue that it may have application to Iowa's felon in possession of a firearm statute 724.26, which makes it illegal for a felon and/or certain persons convicted on domestic abuse charges and/or subject to no contact orders to knowingly possess a firearm.

Should the State also have to prove that you knew you could not legally possess a firearm? Of course this would not excuse intentional ignorance where a person simply refuses to read their legal paperwork and refuses to make a reasonable effort to understand their fi****ms status. But the Rehaif case is worth reading and considering if you are charged under 18 USC 924(a)(2) or Iowa Code Section 724.26.

05/28/2019

State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 2018). A police officer cannot impound your car pursuant to a traffic stop and then once the car is impounded conduct an "inventory" search of the contents of your car without your consent or a warrant signed by a judge.

This eliminates the abuse where an officer would, for example, pull a person over for having an inoperable license plate light. Discover that the person had an expired vehicle registration. Maybe the officer thinks the driver looks like a doper and asks to search the car. But, the driver does not consent to a vehicle search.

So, the officer arrests the driver for expired registration (when he could have just issued a traffic ticket and then released the driver) and then impounds and searches the car pursuant to an "inventory" impound search where drugs are found. The Ingram case now makes the seized drugs suppressable so that they cannot be used as evidence against the driver.

03/02/2019

State v. Malloy 453 N.W.2d 243 (Ia. Ct. App. 1990). Failure to use a turn signal is not necessarily probable cause for a traffic stop and could lead to suppression of any evidence discovered pursuant to that traffic stop if the alleged turn signal violation was the only reason for the traffic stop.

See Iowa Code Section 321.314 a driver is only required to use a turn signal where other vehicles will be affected by the driver's turn (this would include a police car). "Affected by the driver's turn" probably means a vehicle closer than two blocks when speeds are less than 45 mph but this is only a generality and not necessarily a bright line rule.

11/27/2018

Searches: State v. Brown (Iowa 2018). A search warrant for a premises does not authorize the search of an individual who is not named in the warrant but merely happens to be present on the premises.

(So do not consent to the search - however, don't resist the officer either. Clearly verbalize that you do not consent to the search. Then when the officer takes physical control of you and searches anyway just cooperate). Don't admit any wrongdoing to the officer. The less you say the better.This will create a suppression of evidence issue for your attorney to pursue.

07/11/2018

Governor Kim Reynolds received permission from the federal government to repeal Iowa's law regarding suspension of driver's license without loss of federal highway funds.

Iowa Code Section 901.5(10) previously revoked a defendant's driver's license for 180 days for a conviction of possession of a controlled substance under Iowa Code Sections 124.401, 124.401A, 124.402 and 124.403. Given Governor Reynolds written certification, effective July 1, 2018 Iowa Code Section 901.5(10) is repealed. Anyone whose driver's license was previously revoked pursuant to 901.5(10) can have their driver's license re-instated if said person is otherwise eligible for a driver's license.

Address

P. O. Box 1212
Johnston, IA
50266

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kevin Hobbs, Attorney at Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Kevin Hobbs, Attorney at Law:

Shortcuts

Share

Category