The Prosecution of Falstaff

 THE PROSECUTION OF FALSTAFF

The Case of Young

Supreme Court of Iowa

We now have prosecutions and convictions of criminal offenses determined by whether it would have been something which Falstaff might have been guilty of or Hotspur.  Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with either, they are creatures of Shakespeare who now has attained the imminence of a legal authority in the annals of Iowa criminal jurisprudence.

Our case law, the literature of the courts, has now added Shakespeare as an authority to which we must pay homage.  I am not familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries so am unable to derive the historical verity of Shakespeare's status as a source of the common law of England, but if Justice Mansfield says it is so, it must be.

In the Case of Young, first name Artell, the federal authorities had obtained the signature of Young when being released from federal prison, that he would agree to having his house searched if there was "reasonable suspicion" that he might have illegal substances on or about his property.  The idea of these probation agreements meeting the current standards of contractual arrangements - - not a factor.

So, federal agents searched Mr. Young's residence without a warrant and found piddling amounts (obviously personal use) of crack, cocaine, and marijuana.  Apparently the Feds were too busy to deal with Mr. Young, so they called up state law enforcement and said "Hey, we've got a guy you can prosecute and throw back in prison, but we haven't got time to do it so it would be wonderful if you would do it".  And, of course, our state law enforcement said "sure, we're always available to help you guys out".

The issue that our Supreme Court wrestled with in this case, was whether the U. S. Constitution should apply to the search or the Iowa Constitution should apply.  Do you need a warrant to search the home of a person on probation?  The Feds didn't have a warrant.  There was much discussion of "a special-needs exception" and other morsels of ratiocination, but the Court said that because federal agents did it and Mr. Young was on federal probation, federal law applies and the Feds don't have to follow Iowa law when searching the residence of an Iowa citizen in the State of Iowa.  Good to know, right?

So there you have it, Shakespeare is now  legal authority in the guise of Falstaff (Hotspur is another issue altogether)  and the Feds can search your home without a warrant if you're on federal probation.  As I have often said, and not proven wrong, our State will find a reason to prove you a criminal, even if they have to hunt for it in the literature of the 16th and 17th centuries.  It's called 'stare decisis'.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo