• Senate Study Bill 1030 and House Study Bill 113 – These are companion bills sponsored by the Iowa Attorney General prohibiting sex by deception.  It’s not what you think.  This attempt at amending the definition of sexual abuse in the third degree is not necessary.  There have already been convictions of persons in Iowa who have tried some very unique excuses for fondling young men’s genitals.  They have all been convicted.  Adding the phrase “deception as to the sexual nature of the act”, can only lead to further litigation.  Case law, at this time, is sufficient.  There was considerable discussion during subcommittee meetings.  We can expect this issue to come up again next year.
•  HF 657 – Sigh!  Another AG proposal.  This bill will further define the definition of “indecent exposure”.  Again, the AG feels this action is necessary because the current definition was not sufficient to earn the AG a successful court appeal.  In a couple of cases specifically, State v. Isaac, 756 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2008), and State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 2008), the AG failed to get convictions because act of exposure did not arouse the sexual gratification of either party.  Do you get the feeling that the AG has a hang up on sex?   Like the previous issue, it’s doubtful the AG will give up trying to make this issue an addition to the obscenity statute.
• SF 97 – This bill requires the DNA testing of aggravated misdemeanants.  Iowa already requires DNA samples be taken from felons and misdemeanants convicted of sex crimes.  This addition of acquiring DNA samples becomes really silly when looking at some of the crimes that are punished as aggravated misdemeanors, including, but not limited to:  “conducting a race . . .  where the pari-mutuel system of wagering is used . . .  without a license issued by the commission”; supplying “alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to a person who is under legal age . . .  which results in serious injury to any person”; and the unlawful marking or branding of livestock.  SF 97 was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it died, because the cost of obtaining those DNA samples was prohibitive, especially within this state’s financial atmosphere.     
• HSB 71 – This bill originated with the County Attorneys Association.  It was called the Heemstra Bill, after the Warren County man who was first convicted of 1st degree murder in the death of his neighbor.  But since he did not “intend” to kill his neighbor, but only wound him, the 1st degree murder conviction did not stand.  This bill would have retaliated for the CAs’ loss by allowing any crime which began as an intentional act to inflict serious injury, but subsequently resulted in death, to be charged as first degree murder.  A subcommittee meeting was held, but the bill failed to proceed on to full committee consideration.
• SF 205 – This bill, sponsored by the Dept. of Corrections (specifically the 2nd Judicial District of Community-based Corrections) requires testing for infectious diseases of persons under supervision of the state’s judicial district departments of correctional services (CBCs).  The ACLU-IA worked hard to convince legislators and others that testing of a third party (probationer or parolee) will provide a false sense of security only.  In order to protect one’s health the person affected should have periodical testing conducted on themselves to avoid the potential of false negative test results of the 3rd party.  This bill did pass the Senate and is included in this year’s ACLU-IA Voting Record.
• SF 100 – Another high priority of the County Attorneys Association is this bill that pertains to the disposition of minors with mental illness or mental retardation.  Under current law, a minor adjudicated to have committed a delinquent act, who is also determined to be mentally ill or mentally retarded, shall have the order set aside if the child is civilly committed for treatment.  This bill eliminates the requirement.
• HF 4 – Another juvenile justice issue, this is a bill that would make a truant a juvenile delinquent if the child failed to complete the terms of a mediation settlement.   The ACLU opposes all “status crimes”.  A status crime is one that is committed only because of the person’s status (i.e. anti-vagrancy statutes, curfews, etc.).  Status crimes lack due process.

Of course, we had our disappointments, too.  The following bills were part of a pro-active effort by the ACLU-IA, but efforts that came up short.

• HSB 99 – This bill was suggested by the ACLU of Iowa to fix a discrepancy in marijuana possession laws.  A class “D” offense is committed if a person “manufactures,” sells, distributes, etc. marijuana.    Many substances have a top end for the class “D” before it moves to a more serious offense (as if a class “D” felony isn’t enough of an offense already), and marijuana’s is 50 kilograms.  That’s over 100 lbs of marijuana.  But do you know what the floor is for possession to trigger a class “D” felony?  Zero!  A two-inch plant (you’re manufacturing, not growing) will get you 5 years in the pen.  “Violation of this subsection, with respect to any other controlled substances, counterfeit substances, or simulated controlled substances classified in schedule IV or V is an aggravated misdemeanor.  However, violation of this subsection involving fifty kilograms or less of marijuana . . .  is a class "D" felony.”  Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d).  The craziness goes beyond reasonable when taking in to account certain other Code sections, such as the accommodation statute and the solicitation to commit a felony statute.  We couldn’t get any support to move the bill.
• SSB 1063 and HSB 79 – These companion bills were intended to adjust the egregious discrepancy between penalties for rack and powder cocaine.  Unfortunately, they were introduced by the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy, a.k.a. The Drug Czar.  The movement toward equalization was heading in the wrong direction.   The Senate wanted to pick a level out of the air.  That wasn’t good.  The House subcommittee decided to leave the matter in the hands of the interim Criminal Code Reorganization Study Committee.  Well, the CCRSC has done nothing to address the problem this interim, nor is it on the horizon.  The ACLU-IA will do what it can to bring this issue to the forefront – properly. 
•  HF 43 & SF 74 – These companion bills by Rep. Beth Weessel-Kroeschell (D-Ames) and Sen. Pam Jochum (D-Dubuque) will allow a person who was sent to prison for the life as a juvenile to apply for a review of sentence after 15 years.  There was a lot of confusion about what these bills would do.  It will not allow an automatic commutation of a life sentence, and not every person convicted of a class “A” felony while a juvenile will qualify to apply.  The bill is in its infant years.  We’ll be back.
• SF 393 – This bill, which dealt with modifying the definitions of “child abuse” and “child in need of assistance” as it pertained to providing obscene material to a minor, originated as a bill that the ACLU-IA adamantly opposed.  In the course of subcommittee meetings, the ACLU-IA legislative director, working closely with the ACLU-IA legal director, presented language to legislators and the Dept. of Human Services that was more in line with constitutional protections.  All parties agreed to the language and the moved easily out of the Senate, but became stalled in the House prior to adjournment sine die.  SF 393 is eligible for consideration in the House next year, and the ACLU-IA will be there to help steer it through.  This bill is not included in this year’s Voting Record because the ACLU-IA does not include bills that we have opposed and eventually made better, unless we improved it to the point of supporting it.  ACLU of Iowa remains neutral on SF 393 as amended.