STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. DAVID ALLEN GOINGS , Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-809 / 06-1607
Filed November 26, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DAVID ALLEN GOINGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, J.G. Johnson,
District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals from his possession of marijuana conviction.
AFFIRMED.
Judith O‟Donohoe of Elwood, O‟Donohoe, Stochl, Braun & Churbuck,
Charles City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, and W. Patrick Wegman, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
David Goings appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana in
violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003), following a trial to the court on
the minutes of evidence. He argues the district court should have granted his
motion to suppress all evidence seized following a search of his mother‟s home
and adjacent farmland. The district court, in finding Goings had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in a room he occasionally used in his mother‟s home,
partially sustained the motion as to any items seized from the bedroom, but
allowed the admission of all other evidence seized.
Following the entry of
judgment and imposition of sentence on his conviction, notice of appeal was
filed. The supreme court granted Goings‟s and the State‟s joint motion for limited
remand, after which the suppression ruling was affirmed.
Our review of a
constitutional challenge is de novo. State v. McGrane, 733 N.W.2d 671, 675
(Iowa 2007).
We agree with the district court as to the reasonable expectation of
privacy Goings maintained in the one bedroom, although it was now primarily
used by one of his sister‟s children. In addition, the district court correctly found
Goings‟s mother gave the officers permission to search her home, then to cross
her property, and to access the neighbor‟s land where more than 2200 marijuana
plants were being grown.
While Goings claims his mother‟s “consent” was
premised upon a ruse orchestrated by the sheriff in conjunction with the
Department of Human Services, the record does not support his assertion.
Moreover, it was the neighbor who had complained of the cultivation activity, and
3
Goings had no expectation of privacy either in the neighbor‟s land or in his
mother‟s land.
Goings arrest, as he was crouched in a bean field covered with the scent
and residue of fresh marijuana plants, was as the State noted, “as close to being
caught „red-handed‟ with marijuana as anyone could be without having the stalks
in hand.”
Substantial evidence supports the conviction.
immediately upon arrest, he was read his Miranda1 rights.
Furthermore,
Without any
questioning, Goings made voluntary statements, which were properly admitted
into evidence.
We affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
