author: LARSON, Justice.

text:
    Benjamin E. SCHREIBER, Gentric Hicks, Bobby Smith, and Archie Bear, Appellants, v. STATE of Iowa, Appellee.
    No. 01-1192.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 16, 2003.
    Benjamin E. Schreiber, Fort Madison, pro se, for appellants.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Forrest Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   LARSON, Justice.

These petitioners challenge Iowa’s mandatory DNA testing statute, Iowa Code § 13.10 (1999) (as amended by S.F. 2324, 78th G.A. § 1122), on several constitutional grounds. The district court rejected their arguments, and so do we.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

These petitioners were, at the time the petition was filed, all prisoners at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison. In December 2000 they petitioned for judicial review to challenge the constitutionality of Iowa Code section 13.10, which requires inmates who have been convicted of certain offenses to submit a blood specimen for DNA profiling. The court granted the defendants’ (collectively the. State’s) motion to dismiss the judicial review petition, and the petitioners appealed.

II. The Statute.

Iowa Code section 13.10 provides:

Physical criminal evidence — DNA profiling.

1. The attorney general shall adopt rules in consultation with the division of criminal investigation, department of public safety, for the purpose of classifying felonies and indictable misdemeanors which shall require the offender to submit a physical specimen for DNA profiling upon confinement in or prior to release from a county jail, upon commitment to the custody of the director of the department of corrections, or prior to discharge of sentence, or as a condition of probation. Factors to be considered shall include the deterrent effect of DNA profiling, the likelihood of repeated violations, and the seriousness of the offense. The offenses that require the offender to submit a physical specimen for DNA profiling shall include but are not limited to the following:

a. Murder in violation of section 707.2 or 707.3.

b. Attempt to commit murder in violation of section 707.11.

c. Kidnapping in violation of section 710.1, 710.2, or 710.8.

d. Sexual abuse in violation of section 709.2, 709.3, or 709.4.

e. Assault with intent to commit sexual abuse in violation of section 709.11.

f. Assault while participating in a felony in violation of section 708.3.

g. Burglary in the first degree in violation of section 713.3.

2. The division of criminal investigation shall carry out DNA profiling of submitted physical specimens. The division may contract with private entities for DNA profiling. “DNA profiling” means the procedure established by the division of criminal investigation, department of public safety, for determining a person’s genetic identity.

III. The Issues.

The petitioners argue that the statute is unconstitutional on ex post facto grounds because they had not been sentenced to have their DNA taken. (The statute was passed after their incarcerations.) They also allude to other possible issues on appeal, including that (1) they were denied equal protection; (2) the statute violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion; and (3) it violates a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l-(a), addressing freedom of religion. However, the petitioners did not raise either the First Amendment or federal statutory arguments in the district court, and they have therefore waived them. In addition, while the petitioners allude to equal protection in one sentence in their appellate brief, they do not present an argument on the issue, and it could be deemed waived. See Iowa Ct. R. 6.14(l)(c) (“Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed [a] waiver of that issue.”). In any event, other courts that have considered equal-protection arguments have rejected them, applying rational-basis scrutiny. See, e.g., Roe v. Marcotte, 193 F.3d 72, 82 (2d Cir.1999); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359, 998 P.2d 166, 174 (2000); State v. Olivas, 122 Wash.2d 73, 856 P.2d 1076, 1087 (1993). We reject the equal-protection argument and confine our analysis to the ex post facto claims.

IV. The Ex Post Facto Argument.

The petitioners claim the statute violates the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The State responds primarily that the statute is not a violation of the ex post facto clauses because it is not punitive. Under the Federal Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No state shall ... pass any ... ex post facto law....” Similarly, the Iowa Constitution provides, “No ... ex post facto law ... shall ever.be passed.”' Iowa Const, art. I, § 21.

The Supreme Court has stated that ■ any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.

Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217 (1925). Addressing both the state and federal constitutions, we have said the “constitutional provisions forbid the application of a new punitive measure to .conduct already coim mitted. The clauses are also violated when a statute makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime after its commission.” State v. Corwin, 616 N.W.2d 600, 601 (Iowa 2000) (citation omitted).

A statute is punitive, for ex post facto purposes, if its intent is to punish for past activity and not merely to impose a restriction on someone “as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation.” State v. Pickens, 558 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Iowa 1997) (quoting De Vean v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 1155, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109, 1120 (1960)); accord Corwin, 616 N.W.2d at 601. The statute at issue in Pickens, regarding Iowa’s sexual-offender registry, is analogous to the DNA database statute. - In Pickens the statute provided for the offender’s registration and, "in some cases, the dissemination of the information. See Pickens, 558 N.W.2d at 400. The registration statute in Pick-ens, we said, was “motivated by concern for public safety, not to increase the punishment.” Id. The rationale for our DNA statute and parameters for its application are apparent in the statute itself, which provides that it should be applied in light of “the deterrent effect of DNA profiling, the likelihood of repeated violations, and the seriousness of the offense.” Iowa Code § 13.10.

The Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s sex-offender registry against an ex post facto law and provided this rationale:

We must ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings. If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil. Because we ordinarily defer to the legislature’s stated intent, only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. -, -, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1146-47, 155 L.Ed.2d 164, 176 (2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Other courts have rejected ex post facto arguments in DNA database cases on the ground the statutes are not punitive in nature. See, e.g., Shaffer v. Saffle, 148 F.3d 1180, 1182 (10th Cir.1998); Rise v. Oregon, 59 F.3d 1556 (9th Cir.1995); Gilbert v. Peters, 55 F.3d 237 (7th Cir.1995).

In Gilbert the prisoners claimed that imposing prison discipline for refusing to comply with a DNA test violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court rejected the argument, holding that the sanctions applied were disciplinary measures resulting from the prisoners’ refusal to comply, and not'punishment for the commission of the original crime. Gilbert, 55 F.3d at 239.

We agree with these courts in interpreting the Iowa statute. Its underlying purpose is not punitive. In fact, if the petitioners commit no further crimes, it will have no effect on them. Rather, the intent of the statute is to promote public safety. Additionally, any prison sanctions that may be applied for refusing to provide a specimen would not be ex post facto punishment because the sanctions do not enhance the sentence imposed by the court for the offense originally committed. Id.

While the fourth circuit in Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302 (4th Cir.1992), found the Virginia statute to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, that case and the statute it applied are distinguishable. In Jones the court held that “neither Virginia’s blood testing requirement, itself, nor the infliction of punishment within the terms of the prisoners’ original sentence for a violation of the requirement, is ex post facto.” Jones, 962 F.2d at 310. However, the court found a portion of the statute, which deferred a prisoner’s mandatory release date until the prisoner provided a sample, created an ex post facto problem. Id. Iowa has no such mandatory parole provisions.

We conclude the purpose of section 13.10 is remedial, not punitive, and does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of either the federal or state constitution.

V. Conclusion.

For the reasons discussed, we reject the petitioners’ ex post facto and equal-protection arguments. The remaining arguments raised on appeal have been waived by the petitioners’ failure to raise them in the district court. We conclude the motion to dismiss was properly granted.

AFFIRMED.

      . The State raises an issue concerning the status of some of the defendants as "agencies” for judicial review purposes. Because we reject the petitioners' claims as a matter of law, we do not address this procedural issue.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: TERNUS, Justice. NEUMAN, Justice

license: Public Domain

text:
    Mark ZOMER, Appellant, v. WEST RIVER FARMS, INC. and IMT Insurance Company, Appellees.
    No. 01-0326.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 16, 2003.

      Alice S. Horneber of Horneber Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellant.
    Timothy A. Clausen of Klass, Stoik, Mu-gan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechowski, Clau-sen & Lapierre, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellees.
   TERNUS, Justice.

In this workers’ compensation case involving an injured agricultural employee, the compensability of the claimant’s work-related injury depends on whether the employer’s insurance policy specifically covers the claimant, as required for application of the workers’ compensation act to farm employees. See Iowa Code § 85.1(3)(6)(3), (6) (1997). Although the employer’s workers’ compensation policy does not by its terms cover the claimant, the deputy workers’ compensation commissioner reformed the policy to provide such coverage. On intra-agency appeal, the chief deputy commissioner held that the agency had no jurisdiction to reform a workers’ compensation policy and this decision was affirmed on judicial review.

We think the agency did have jurisdiction to reform the policy because, under the unique circumstances of this case, a determination of insurance coverage was an essential prerequisite to a determination of the compensability of the claimant’s injury. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The appellant, Mark Zomer, was employed by appellee West River Farms, Inc. as a farm laborer. West River Farms is a family farm corporation owned by Gertrude Blom, Zomer’s mother-in-law. While employed by West River Farms, Zomer sustained a work-related injury on November 8, 1995. He subsequently filed a claim with the Iowa workers’ compensation commissioner, seeking statutory benefits under the Iowa workers’ compensation act, Iowa Code chapter 85.

West River Farms’ insurance carrier, appellee IMT Insurance Company, contested liability, claiming Zomer was an exempt agricultural employee under the act. IMT relied on " Iowa Code section 85.1(3)(6)(3), which provides that chapter 85 does not apply to “persons engaged in agriculture,” including spouses of the children of officers of a family farm corporation. Iowa Code § 85.1(3)(6)(3). Zomer claimed this exemption did not apply to him, citing Iowa Code section 85.1(6), which permits a family farm corporation to assume liability under chapter 85 “by the purchase of valid workers’ compensation insurance specifically including the employee or classification of employees.” Id. § 85.1(6). IMT asserted West River Farms had not exercised this option because the policy issued by TMT to the farm corporation did not include an endorsement extending coverage to family members. In response, Zomer claimed the endorsement had been omitted from the policy through the mutual, mistake of Blom and IMT’s agent. He asked the commissioner (1) to reform the policy to provide coverage for family members, (2) to hold, that the reformed policy removed Zomer from the section 85.1(8) exemption under the act, and. (3) to award benefits under the act for his work-related injury.

The matter proceeded to hearing and a deputy workers’ compensation commissioner granted Zomer the requested relief. On IMT’s appeal, the chief deputy workers’ compensation commissioner issued a final agency decision holding that the agency had no “equitable jurisdiction” and therefore was required to determine the compensability of Zomer’s injury on the basis of the policy as actually issued by IMT. Based on the policy as written, the chief deputy concluded West River Farms had not insured family members, and consequently, Zomer was an exempt agricultural employee to whom the benefits of chapter 85 did not apply.

This decision was affirmed on judicial review by the district court and on appeal by the court of appeals. We granted Zomer’s application for further review.

II. Issue on Appeal and Scope of Review.

The sole question on appeal is whether the workers’ compensation commissioner has jurisdiction to reform a workers’ compensation policy where the existence of insurance coverage is determinative of a claimant’s qualification for benefits under chapter 85. We review the agency’s decision on this legal question for correction of errors of law. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(e) (stating court may reverse agency ruling affected by an error of law).

III. Discussion.

In determining whether the commissioner has the power to reform a workers’ compensation insurance policy under the circumstances presented by this case, we start with the general proposition that as an administrative agency, the commissioner “has no inherent power and has only such authority as is conferred by statute or is necessarily inferred • from the power expressly granted.” Schmidt v. Iowa State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 423 N.W.2d 19, 21 (Iowa 1988); accord Sioux City Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Iowa State Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 402 N.W.2d 739, 741 (Iowa 1987). What then is the power “expressly granted” to the commissioner? Our legislature has given the commissioner authority to resolve claims for workers’ compensation benefits:

The industrial commissioner may order any number or combination of alleged workers’ compensation insurance carriers and alleged employers, which are parties to a contested case ..., to pay all or part of the benefits due to an employee ... if ... the commissioner determines after an evidentiary hearing, that one or more of the carriers or employers is liable to the employee ... for benefits under this chapter ....

Iowa Code § 85.21. The scope of this authority is comprehensive: “In an original proceeding, all matters relevant to a dispute are subject to inquiry.” Id. § 86.14 (emphasis added). The determinative question, then, is whether the reformation issue presented by this case is a matter relevant to the employer’s liability for benefits under the act.

In answering this question, we keep in mind that the workers’ compensation law “must be construed according to the language the legislature has chosen.” Ehteshamfar v. UTA Engineered Sys. Div., 555 N.W.2d 450, 453 (Iowa 1996). Moreover, we interpret the act broadly and liberally in favor of the worker. Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998). Finally, we strive to be true to the legislature’s purpose in providing this statutory remedy. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sneddon, 249 Iowa 393, 403, 86 N.W.2d 870, 877 (1957). That purpose has been stated as follows:

The fundamental reason for the enactment of this legislation is to avoid litigation, lessen the expense incident thereto, minimize appeals, and afford an efficient and speedy tribunal to determine and award compensation under the terms of this act.
“It was the purpose of the legislature to create a tribunal to do rough justice— speedy, summary, informal, untechnical. With this scheme of the legislature we must not interfere; for, if we trench in the slightest degree upon the prerogatives of the commission, one encroachment will breed another, until finally simplicity will give way to complexity, and informality to technicality.”

Flint v. City of Eldon, 191 Iowa 845, 847, 183 N.W. 344, 345 (1921) (citation omitted).

Interpreting the statutory powers conferred by the legislature on the workers’ compensation commissioner in light of these principles, we conclude the commissioner has the power to decide any issue necessary to a determination of whether a claimant is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Here, in order to determine whether the employee is entitled to such benefits, it is necessary for' the commissioner to decide whether Zomer is covered by the farm corporation’s workers’ compensation insurance policy. Resolution of this coverage issue depends on whether the policy should be reformed, based on the parties’ mutual mistake, to include the claimant as an insured. Thus, only by deciding the reformation issue can the commissioner determine whether the claimant is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

The insurance carrier contends, however, that only courts may grant the equitable remedy of reformation. As a result, according to the insurer, an employee in Zomer’s position must first commence an action in district court to reform the policy and then, if successful, proceed to recover workers’ compensation benefits in a contested case proceeding before the commissioner.

Such an interpretation of the commissioner’s authority is, we think, contrary to the express language of the applicable statute as well as its underlying purpose. The legislature has given the commissioner the power to resolve “all matters relevant” to a compensation claim, not just the legal issues relevant to a claim. Iowa Code § 86.14 (emphasis added). In addition, the bifurcated litigation process suggested by the insurer is a far cry from the efficient and speedy remedy envisioned by the general assembly when it adopted the workers’ compensation act. As this court recently observed, the “beneficent purposes” of the workers’ compensation law “should not be defeated by ‘reading something into it which is not there.’ ” Area Educ. Agency 7 v. Bauch, 646 N.W.2d 398, 400 (Iowa 2002) (citation omitted). We refuse to read into the statute a limitation on the commissioner’s authority to decide claims for compensation, particularly when to do so would defeat one of the primary purposes of the statute — the provision of a prompt and adequate remedy.

Our conclusion that the workers’ compensation commissioner has authority to reform the policy under the circumstances of this case finds support in our Sneddon decision. In that case, we held the commissioner had jurisdiction to decide whether the workers’ compensation policy at issue was in effect at the time of the employee’s injury. See Sneddon, 249 Iowa at 404, 86 N.W.2d at 877. In our opinion, we cited several cases from other jurisdictions “which support[ed] our holding,” and represented the majority view, including cases holding the commissioner had the power to reform a policy based on mutual mistake, to reform a policy for fraud in the procurement, and to correct a scrivener’s mistake in writing the policy, as well as a case stating generally that the commission has the power to apply rules of equity as well as rules of law to determine whether an award of workers’ compensation benefits should be made. See id. at 398-402, 86 N.W.2d at 874-75. The fundamental premise of our opinion was that the commissioner has jurisdiction to decide issues integral to the determination of a claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits.

We disagree with the insurer and employer’s contention that the present case is more analogous to Bair v. Blue Ribbon, Inc., 256 Iowa 660, 129 N.W.2d 85 (1964), where we held the commissioner did not have jurisdiction to determine the liability of an insurer for policy' benefits payable under an endorsement to a workers’ compensation policy. In Bair, the claim asserted was not a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, but for payment under another coverage of the employer’s insurance policy that provided “benefits to a person not deemed an employee under the [a]ct,” such payment being measured by what the claimant would have recovered under the workers’ compensation law had he been covered by the act. See Bair, 256 Iowa at 661-62, 129 N.W.2d at 85-86 (emphasis added). Clearly, this issue had nothing to do with the determination of liability for statutory workers’ compensation benefits, and therefore was properly held to be outside the jurisdiction of the workers’ compensation commissioner. We think the present case is more analogous to the coverage question raised in Sneddon because the coverage issue in that case, like the reformation issue raised here, was essential to a determination of the employee’s entitlement to benefits under the act.

As a final matter, we address the agency’s conclusion that it has no “equitable jurisdiction” and so cannot reform the policy. Although it is true as a general proposition that the commissioner has no equitable jurisdiction in the same sense that a court has equitable jurisdiction, we do not think this truism resolves the question before us. The mere fact that reformation is equitable in nature should not hinder the commissioner’s ability to determine the compensability of an injury. See Employers’ Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 98 P.2d 456, 462 (1940) (rejecting argument that commissioner could not consider equitable claim for reformation based on fraud and mutual mistake, stating such a restriction on commissioner’s authority would undermine lawmakers’ intent to provide a speedy administrative remedy for workers’ claims); Harris v. Pine Cleaners, Inc., 296 S.W.2d 27, 29 (Mo.1956) (holding industrial commission had authority to rule upon equitable issue, “ ‘otherwise endless complications and delays would be introduced into the administration of the Act’ ” (citation omitted)). In fact, the legislature has expressly granted the commissioner authority to equitably' apportion benefits among dependents. See Iowa Code § 85.43. Clearly, then, the legislature harbored no intent that the commissioner was incapable of applying rules of equity. Similarly, we find no impediment to the commissioner’s application of equitable principles of reformation when appropriate and necessary to determine a worker’s entitlement to statutory benefits.

IV. Summary and Disposition.

In summary, the test with respect to the commissioner’s jurisdiction is whether the disputed matter is necessary to a determination of liability under the workers’ compensation statute. If so, the commissioner has the power to decide the issue. The issue presented in the appeal before us clearly meets this test and, therefore, the commissioner had the authority to resolve that issue. We vacate the court of appeals’ contrary ruling, reverse the district court’s judgment, and remand this case to the commissioner for further proceedings consistent with our decision.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.

All justices concur except NEUMAN, J., who dissents. LARSON, J., joins the dissent.

NEUMAN, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I think it will come as a great surprise to the workers’ compensation commissioner that the agency has not only the power to determine the legal effect of a contract — as this court recognized in Sneddon — but to take the next step of reforming contracts based on equitable principles.

Were we writing on a clean slate, the majority’s persuasive opinion might strike me as a great idea. Why not adjudicate all the issues, legal and equitable, in one forum? Courts can do it, why not administrative agencies? The reason, of course, is that our constitution vests the legislature — not this court — with the task of determining the scope of an executive agency’s powers. The majority pays lip service to this principle but then, by its own lights, decides contract reformation is surely an equitable power the legislature meant to confer on the compensation commissioner. It points to a case from Kansas to bolster its view, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 98 P.2d 456, 462 (1940). That opinion, however, has been criticized precisely for having failed to consider the constitutional question implicit in assigning equitable powers to an administrative agency based on statutory interpretation. See Provenzano v. Long, 64 Nev. 412, 183 P.2d 639, 644 (1947) (citing Michigan Mut. Liab. Co. v. Baker, 295 Mich. 237, 294 N.W. 168, 170 (1940)). Although we drew on Matlock for our holding in Sneddon, we described the Kansas decision as “more far reaching than ours is here.” Sneddon, 249 Iowa at 398, 86 N.W.2d at 874. Indeed it was, until today.

The Provenzano case explained its rationale for rejecting the Kansas “rule” this way:

No citation of authority is necessary to show that courts of equity have authority in proper cases to modify, reform, or cancel written instruments. On the other hand, the powers of the commission are derived exclusively from the statutes. No statute is cited by appellants, and we have been unable to find any which even pretends to confer authority on the commission to modify, reform, or cancel written instruments properly before it for consideration. Any attempt by the Legislature to confer such purely judicial powers upon the commission would no doubt meet with insurmountable constitutional objections. While the Workmen’s Compensation Act must at all times be liberally construed to the end that its beneficent purposes may be fully carried out, we find no sanction in the law for the contention herein made that the commission may exercise such purely judicial powers.

Provenzano, 183 P.2d at 645 (citations and quoted authority omitted). More recently, the Oklahoma appellate court reached the same conclusion, holding its compensation commissioner “does not possess the power of reformation and cannot exercise that power by the use of interpretation and construction.” D. Daniels Masonry v. Daniels, 999 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Okla.Civ.Ct.App.2000).

The majority rightly notes that other courts have taken a different course. But when the question has arisen in other contexts in Iowa, this court has ruled the compensation commissioner cannot grant equitable relief. See, e.g., Ford v. Barcus, 261 Iowa 616, 622, 155 N.W.2d 507, 511 (1968); Doyle v. Dugan, 229 Iowa 724, 731-32, 295 N.W. 128, 131-32 (1940).

The majority justifies today’s decision as a way of simplifying the resolution of insurance contract disputes “when appropriate and necessary to determine a worker’s entitlement to statutory benefits.” This is a noble goal but I fear it will ultimately complicate, rather than simplify, the process. Here the commissioner, construing the employer’s insurance policy, determined as a matter of law that the policy did not cover Zomer. So, the commissioner concluded, the agency was without jurisdiction to adjudicate Zomer’s claim for benefits. Today’s holding means that the agency will now reconsider the record, examining the facts for proof of mutual mistake, and .then reform the contract (or not) based on equity. When the inevitable petition for judicial review is filed, and then appealed, will this court then review the disputed facts de novo, rather than at law? Assuming the former, this court will be free to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency, a situation that arguably will lead — in the long run — to more appeals and resultant delay, not less.

In short, I am convinced the majority has read too much into our Sneddon decision and, more importantly, has given equitable authority to an agency that is the legislator’s prerogative to confer, not ours. The opinion also injects uncertainty into a system that needs more, not less, predictability. I cannot join it.

LARSON, J., joins this dissent.

      . Although the 1998 amendments to Iowa's administrative procedure act do not apply to this case as the petition for arbitration was filed prior to the effective date of the amendments, see 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1202, § 46, these amendments confirm the principle that an agency has no inherent authority. See id. § 25 (codified at Iowa Code § 17A.23 (2001)). See generally Arthur E. B onfield, Amendments to Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, Report on Selected Provisions to Iowa State Bar Association and Iowa State Government 73 (1998) (stating amendment to section 17A.23 “clearly and firmly restates current law”).

      . While there is some diversity of opinion among courts considering the scope of jurisdiction granted to an agency responsible for administering a workers’ compensation act, the majority rule appears to remain, as we noted in Sneddon, that the agency can consider any issue necessary to a determination of a claimant’s right to statutory benefits, including reformation of the policy. See 9 Larson’s Workers' Compensation Law § 150.04[1], at 150-21 (2002); 82 Am.Jur.2d Workers' Compensation § 487, at 426 (2003).


author: CARTER, Justice.

text:
    In the Matter of the CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS IN LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COUNTY ROAD BY ALLAMAKEE COUNTY, IOWA. Richard H. Wild, Randy L. Wild, Robert B. Wild, Donald G. Kermeen, Lillian Kermeen, Evelyn Wild, and Dale Buntrock, Appellants, v. Allamakee County, Appellee.
    No. 02-0393.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 16, 2003.

      Dennis G. Larson of Larson Law Office, Decorah, for appellants.
    Robert W. Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, for appellee.
   CARTER, Justice.

Plaintiffs, Richard H. Wild, Randy L. Wild, Robert D. Wild, Donald K. Kermeen, Lillian Kermeen, Evelyn Wild, and Dale Buntrock, who are ■ owners of property within an “agricultural area;” created pursuant to Iowa Code section 352.6 (2001), appeal from an adverse judgment in their action to enjoin Allamakee County from taking land within the area by eminent domain. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment denying injunctive relief.

The taking by eminent domain, which plaintiffs sought to enjoin, involved 19.12 acres of land, all of which was situated within an agricultural area created pursuant to Iowa Code section 352.6. On April 6, 2001, an eminent-domain proceeding was initiated by the county for purposes of relocating a county road so as to align with a newly constructed bridge. Plaintiffs’ injunction action was commenced on May 15, 2001. The award of the compensation commission totaling $101,000 for the taking and $720 for attorney fees was returned on May 16, 2001.

In seeking to enjoin the proposed taking of their land, plaintiffs alleged that the taking would offend against the protections afforded, .to property within an agricultural area created pursuant to Iowa Code section 352.6. They also contended that the taking was not in compliance with Iowa Code section 6B.3(l)(f) because it failed to consider the “reasonable necessity” standard applicable to class I and class II land as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture land capability classification system.

Allamakee County moved for a summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. In resisting the motion, plaintiffs relied on the contentions made in their petition concerning the protection afforded to their property from its classification as an agricultural area, and the alleged need to show reasonable necessity for the taking as a result of the property condemned being class I or class II land.

The district court granted the county’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that section 352.6 was a zoning ordinance, which limited uses of the land by property owners within the agricultural area, but did not impede the taking by the county under eminent domain. The court also concluded that plaintiffs could show no irreparable injury cognizant in a court of equity because the compensation awarded plaintiffs under the statutory procedures for eminent domain'were, by law, an adequate remedy.

I. The Irreparable Injury Issue.

At the urging of the county, we first consider whether'this case may be decided entirely on the basis that the plaintiff did not sustain an irreparable injury. We are convinced that it may not.

The district court believed that the payment of compensation (subject to challenge by a court or jury) was the legally established “certain pecuniary standard” for measuring plaintiffs’ loss and thus must be considered to be an adequate remedy. We disagree. The need to show an irreparable injury in order to obtain injunctive relief involves the balancing of interests by a court of equity. Myers v. Caple, 258 N.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Iowa 1977). Irreparable injury for such purposes is equated with the threat of substantial damage unless an injunction is granted. Id. at 305. We are satisfied that because land is unique the taking of real property with which the owner does not wish to part is a matter of substantial damage.

This court has invited the use of injunction actions as a vehicle for challenging eminent-domain proceedings on the ground that they are contrary to law because such contentions may not be raised in the statutory appeal of the award. Thornberry v. State Bd. of Regents, 186 N.W.2d 154 (Iowa 1971). In Thomberry we held that a challenge to the condemning entity’s authority to invoke eminent domain could not be raised in the appeal of an award. Id. at 157. We went on to state:

This does not mean, however, there is no available avenue by which a con-demnee may test the initiatory action of a condemning public body.
On several occasions we have held, injunctive relief is available.

Id. Among the cases cited in Thomberry for enjoining the power of eminent domain was Batcheller v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 251 Iowa 364, 370-71, 101 N.W.2d 30, 34 (1960), which approved enjoining a taking of property on the ground that the eminent-domain proceeding had omitted essential parties. The district court was wrong in concluding that, even if the taking was unlawful, the plaintiff did not suffer an injury sufficient to warrant the granting of an injunction. Its action in granting summary judgment was correct, however, because, for reasons that we will now discuss, the taking was not contrary to law.

II. The Consequences of Agricultural Area Status Under Iowa Code Section 352.6.

Plaintiff urges that the protection conferred on agricultural land by Iowa Code section 352.6 precludes the county from taking property within the protected area by eminent domain. The district court concluded that this statute was akin to a zoning ordinance and only limited uses of the land by the property owners within the area. Plaintiffs argue that the statute is not a zoning ordinance.

Under section 352.6 agricultural areas of not less than three hundred acres may be formed by the owner or owners of contiguous land outside the corporate limits of any city. When created “the use of land in agricultural areas is limited to farm operations,” subject to certain exceptions. Iowa Code § 352.6. The exceptions are:

1. The following shall be permitted in an agricultural area:
a. Residences constructed for occupation by a person engaged in farming or in a family farm operation. Nonconforming preexisting residences may be continued in residential use.
b. Property of a telephone company, city utility as defined in section 390.1, public utility as defined in section 476.1, or pipeline company as defined in section 479.2.
2. The county board of supervisors may permit any use not listed in subsection 1 in an agricultural area only if it finds all of the following:
a. The use is not inconsistent with the purposes set forth in section 352.1.
b. The use does not interfere seriously with farm operations within the area.
c. The use does not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern in the area.

Id.

The essential feature of an agricultural area created under section 352.6 is that it limits the uses that may be made of land within the area. For that reason, we agree with the district court that the statute provides a type of self-imposed zoning. While we have never squarely faced the issue, there is an abundance of authority from other jurisdictions supporting the premise that the power of eminent domain is not limited by zoning regulations. See Savannah v. Collins, 211 Ga. 191, 84 S.E.2d 454, 455 (1954); Indianapolis Power & Light Co. v. Barnard, 175 Ind.App. 308, 371 N.E.2d 408, 412 (1978); State v. Kopp, 330 S.W.2d 882, 888 (Mo.1960); Witzel v. Village of Brainard, 208 Neb. 231, 302 N.W.2d 723, 725 (1981); Seward County Bd. of Comm’rs v. City of Seward, 196 Neb. 266, 242 N.W.2d 849, 852 (1976). We think the principles applied by these courts is of particular validity where, as here, the same sovereign entity has effected the zoning ordinances and the challenged taking.

The challenged taking of plaintiffs’ land is not contrary to the intent of the legislature in enacting Iowa Code chapter 352. That intention was declared to be as follows:

It is the intent of the general assembly to provide local citizens and local governments the means by which agricultural land may be protected from nonagricultural development pressures. This may be accomplished by the creation of county' land preservation and use plans and policies, adoption of an agricultural land preservation ordinance, or establishment of agricultural areas in which substantial agricultural activities are encouraged, so that land inside these areas or subject to those ordinances is conserved for the production of food, fiber, and livestock, thus assuring the preservation of agriculture as a major factor in the economy of this state.

Iowa Code § 352.1 (emphasis added). We do not accept the plaintiffs’ contention that the nonagricultural development pressures against which this legislation was designed to protect included the taking of agricultural land for the improvement of local roads. The district court correctly rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the use limitations of section 352.6 or any other provisions of chapter 352 impeded the taking of plaintiffs’ land by eminent domain.

III. Other Issues.

A. Compliance with Iowa Code section 6B.S(l)(f). We must also consider plaintiffs’ contention that the necessity for the. present taking must be determined under an elevated standard because the property condemned was class I and class II land as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture land capability classification system. They base this contention on the provisions of Iowa Code section 6B.3(l)(f). That statute provides:

The application [for eminent-domain authority] shall set forth:....
If the damages are to be paid by the state and the land to be condemned is within an agricultural area as- provided in chapter 352, a statement disclosing whether any of that land is classified as class I or class II land under the United States department of agriculture natural resources - conservation service land capability classification system ... and, if so classified, stating that the class I or class II is reasonably necessary for the work of internal improvement for which condemnation is sought.

Iowa Code § 6B.3(l)(f) (emphasis added).

We are convinced that the portion of the statutory language which we have italicized limits its application to eminent domain proceedings in which the damages are to be paid by the state. Plaintiffs recite in their own petition (paragraph 11(a)) that “[t]his is an action of condemnation by the County not the State.” Moreover, affidavits filed by the county in support of the motion for summary judgment and not refuted by plaintiffs, aver that damages for the challenged takings were payable entirely from county funds. The district court correctly rejected plaintiffs’ arguments premised on Iowa Code section 6B.3(l)(f).

B. Necessity for the taking. Plaintiffs urge that, even if Iowa Code section 6B.3(l)(f) is not applicable to the present takings, it is necessary to show a reasonable necessity for any taking by eminent domain. With respect to the right of counties to take private property for public use, our statutes limit such takings to “public purposes which are reasonable and necessary as an incident to the powers and duties conferred upon counties.” Iowa Code § 6A.4(1). But our decisions foreclose courts from overturning the determination of necessity that has been made by the public body empowered by law to exercise that authority. We have stated the practical necessity of this rule as follows:

Plaintiffs concede that the highway commission is the state agency possessing control of and dominion over the primary highway system. This includes the determination of the location and design of the highways. We are asked to subject the commission’s judgment to review by the courts upon a pleading that an adequate road can be provided at a much cheaper cost in some other manner. Such a holding would have far-reaching effects. There have probably been very few miles of road constructed in the state about which there has not been a difference of opinion as to its advisability and practicality. To permit a person to base an action upon such reasons and enjoin further proceedings until a factual determination is made, could stall the whole road building program and require the commission to spend much time and money justifying its decisions in court. Such decisions .must necessarily be made by commission and the courts would be unduly interfering in an administrative matter if it undertook to impose its judgment on the commission for the reasons pleaded.

Harvey v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 256 Iowa 1229, 1232, 130 N.W.2d 725, 727 (1964). The same principle has been applied with respect to the decisions of municipal corporations exercising their statutory powers of eminent domain. Ermels v. City of Webster City, 246 Iowa 1305, 1307, 71 N.W.2d 911, 912 (1955); Mook v. City of Sioux City, 244 Iowa 1124, 1137-38, 60 N.W.2d 92, 99 (1953). The county was authorized by law to determine the need for a road relocation so as to align with a newly constructed bridge. The district court correctly concluded that the determination of necessity made by the county was a proper legislative act within its authority and in accordance with the required statutory procedures. Consequently, on the undisputed facts, plaintiffs were not entitled to enjoin the taking of their land, and summary judgment was properly granted against them.

We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

      . Because the award of the commissioners exceeded 110% of the final offer of the condemning authority prior to condemnation, the condemnees were awarded a reasonable attorney fee for the commission proceeding as provided in Iowa Code section 6B.33.

      . Iowa Code section 306.4(2) provides that "[jlurisdiction and control over the secondary roads shall be vested in the county board of supervisors of the respective counties.” Iowa Code section 306.19 provides ''[i]n the maintenance, relocation, establishment, or improvement of any road, including the extension of such road within cities, the agency having jurisdiction and control of such road shall have authority to purchase or to institute and maintain proceedings for the condemnation of the necessary right-of-way therefor.”


author: CADY, Justice.

text:
    STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Marzel JONES, Appellee.
    No. 02-0505.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 16, 2003.

      Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary E. Tabor, Assistant Attorney General, Richard R. Phillips, County Attorney, and Alan Ostergren, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
    Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellee.
    Andrew J. Bracken and Danielle J. Jess of Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith & Allbee, P.C., Des Moines, for amici curiae Iowa Association of School Boards and School Administrators of Iowa.
    Catherine K. Levine, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa Civil Liberties Union.
   CADY, Justice.

In this appeal, we consider a number of issues arising from the search of a high school student’s locker in light of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. After considering the search conducted in light of the balance between the student’s privacy interest and the interest of the school in maintaining a proper educational environment, we conclude that the search was permissible and the district court erred .in suppressing evidence obtained in the course of the search.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On December 20, 2001, teachers and administrators at Muscatine High School attempted to complete an annual pre-win-ter break cleanout of the lockers assigned to each student at the school. The students were asked three to four days before the cleanout to report to their locker at an assigned time to open it so a faculty member could observe its contents. The general purpose of the cleanout was to ensure the health and safety of the students and staff and to help maintain the school’s supplies. Accordingly, faculty assigned to examine the lockers kept an eye out for overdue library books, excessive trash, and misplaced food items. They also watched for items of a more nefarious nature, including weapons and controlled substances. The cleanout functioned as expected for approximately 1400 of the 1700 students at the school. However, a sizea-ble minority — including the appellee, Mar-zel Jones — did not report for the cleanout at their designated time.

The next day, two building aides went around to the lockers that had not been checked the day before. Acting pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the school board, the aides opened each locker to inspect its contents. The aides did not know the names of the students assigned to the lockers they were inspecting. One of the lockers they opened contained only one item: a blue, nylon coat, which hung from one of the two hooks in the locker. Apparently curious about its ownership and concerned that it might hold trash, supplies, or contraband, one of the aides manipulated the coat and discovered a small bag of what appeared to be marijuana in an outside pocket. The aides then returned the coat to the locker and contacted the school’s principal.

After crosschecking the locker number with records kept by the administration, the principal determined the locker in which the suspected marijuana was found belonged to Jones. The principal and aides then went to Jones’ classroom and escorted him to his locker. Jones was asked to open the locker and, after doing so, was further asked if anything in the locker “would cause any educational or legal difficulties for him.” Jones replied in the negative. The principal then removed the coat from the locker. Jones grabbed the coat, struck the principal across the arms, broke free from him, and ran away. The principal gave chase and, after three attempts, captured and held Jones until the police arrived. The police retrieved the bag and determined that it held marijuana.

Jones was later charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2001). He subsequently filed a motion to suppress the evidence — the marijuana — obtained during the search of his locker. He claimed that the search violated his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The lone witness at the suppression hearing was the principal of the high school, who testified about school policy relating to search and seizure and the events of December 20 and 21. The district court granted the motion to suppress. It found that the school officials did not have reasonable grounds for searching Jones’ coat pocket. The State filed a motion requesting the judge reconsider and alter his decision. The motion was denied. The State then sought discretionary review, which we granted.

II. Standard of Review and Preservation of Error.

This controversy arises from an alleged violation of a constitutional right, making our review de novo. State v. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Iowa 2001). In undertaking this review, we assess “the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record,” including “the evidence presented at the. suppression hearing.” Id. Jones acknowledges the State has preserved error on all issues raised.

III. Foundational Principles of Search and Seizure Analysis.

As we have recognized on numerous occasions in the. past, “the Fourth Amendment exists to protect the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials ” State v. Reinier, 628 N.W.2d 460, 464 (Iowa 2001); see also Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 106; State v. Breuer, 577 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Iowa 1998). The Iowa Constitution also contains a search and seizure clause that is virtually identical to the Fourth Amendment. Compare Iowa Const. art. I, § 8, with U.S. Const, amend. 4. Accordingly, we usually interpret “ ‘the scope and purpose of article I, section 8, of the Iowa Constitution to track with federal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Breuer, 577 N.W.2d at 44 (quoting State v. Showalter, 427 N.W.2d 166, 168 (Iowa 1988)).

The essential purpose of both constitutional provisions “ ‘is to impose a standard of “reasonableness” upon the exercise of discretion by government officials ... in order “to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasion.” ’ ” Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 107 (citation omitted). In light of this purpose, we have delineated a two-part test that applies in most cases requiring the determination of whether particular governmental action violates the constitutional search and seizure provisions. See id. at 106 (describing our usual search and seizure analysis focused on the expectation of privacy and the reasonableness of an invasion of that privacy). However, we believe the specific facts of this case warrant an analysis that is more focused than our general approach.

As we observed in another context involving a search and seizure question, “it has been clear that the location of property seized by authorities may be of critical importance in determining whether the search and seizure were lawful.” State v. Flynn, 360 N.W.2d 762, 765 (Iowa 1985). With this in mind, it is significant in this case that the search of Jones’ locker occurred on school grounds. Although students maintain their constitutional rights within the' school setting, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged this setting “require's some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.” New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 326, 340, 105 S.Ct. 733, 742, 83 L.Ed.2d 720, 733 (1985). The Court has provided specific commentary on this “easing of the restrictions” in three eases.

In the first case, New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Court articulated several baseline principles related to the search of a student in the school setting. However, T.L.O. focused on the search of a specific student whose property was searched based on some measure of individualized suspicion of her conduct. See id. at 345-47, 105 S.Ct. at 744-46, 83 L.Ed.2d at 737-38. In two subsequent cases, the Court considered the propriety of searches conducted in the absence of individualized suspicion of a particular student. See Bd. of Ed. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 153 L.Ed.2d 735, (2002); Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995). In these cases, the search of the students was premised on generalized concerns about drug use prevention in light of the effect of the presence of drugs on the educational environment as a whole.

We believe the locker search conducted by the school officials in this case is most closely analogized to the broad searches conducted in Acton and Earls. Although this search eventually focused oh Jones’ locker, the process leading to that point was random and carried out with the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the whole student body to preserve a proper educational environment. Although T.L.O., Acton, and Earls each provide helpful insight on search and seizure in schools, it is the sum of their holdings, crystallized in the Court’s opinion in Earls, from which our analysis must launch. Under the Earls analysis, we must consider three, factors: (1) “the nature of the privacy interest allegedly compromised” by the search, (2) “the character of the intrusion imposed by the [search] [p]olicy,” and (3) “the nature and immediacy of the [school’s] concerns and the efficacy of the [search] [p]olicy in meeting them.” Earls, 536 U.S. at 830, 832, 834, 122 S.Ct. at 2565-67, 153 L.Ed.2d at 744, 746-47 (citations omitted).

The upshot of this analysis, as is evidenced by the controversy arising in the present case, is that “[e]vidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial under the exclusionary rule.” Breuer, 577 N.W.2d at 45. The district court considered the search of Jones’ locker in light of a test articulated by the Court in T.L.O. and suppressed the evidence found in Jones’ coat after concluding Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his locker and that the search of the locker was unreasonable. Although we agree with some of the district court’s reasoning, we disagree with its application of T.L.O. alone and its conclusion that the search was unreasonable and the evidence should be suppressed. We turn now to our analysis of this appeal under the Earls factors.

IV. Nature of the Privacy Interest.

In assessing the nature of the privacy interest in this case, it is imperative to remember this controversy arose within the school context “where the State is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety.” Earls, 536 U.S. at 830, 122 S.Ct. at 2565, 153 L.Ed.2d at 745. This reality has led the Court to acknowledge that “[s]ecuring order in the school environment sometimes requires that students be subjected to greater controls than those appropriate for adults.” Id. at 831, 122 S.Ct. at 2565, 153 L.Ed.2d at 745. Although this may be- the case, we do not believe it can be said that students have no expectation of privacy in a school setting, particularly in a location such as a locker.

The determination of the existence of a legitimate expectation of privacy is based on the unique facts of each case, focusing on “ ‘ “whether the government’s intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.” ’ ” Breuer, 577 N.W.2d at 46 (citation omitted). In T.L.O., the Court observed:

Students at a minimum must bring to school not only the supplies needed for their studies, but also keys, money, and the necessaries of personal hygiene and grooming. In addition, students may carry on their persons or in purses or wallets such nondisruptive yet highly personal items as photographs, letters, and diaries. Finally, students may have perfectly legitimate reasons to carry with them articles of property needed in connection with extracurricular or recreational activities. In short, schoolchildren may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontra-band items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necéssarily waived all rights to privacy in such items merely by bringing them onto school grounds.

T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 339, 105 S.Ct. at 741, 83 L.Ed.2d at 733. However, the Court specifically avoided answering the question of whether a student “has a legitimate expee-tation of privacy in lockers, desks, or other school property provided for the storage of school supplies.” Id. at 337 n. 5, 105 S.Ct. at 740 n. 5, 83 L.Ed.2d at 732 n. 5. Likely due in part to the absence of an authoritative statement on this issue, various courts considering it have produced a divergence of opinion. Some courts have concluded that there is no expectation of privacy in a student locker, particularly in situations in which there exists a school or state regulation specifically disclaiming any privacy right. See In re Patrick Y., 358 Md. 50, 746 A.2d 405, 414 (2000); Shoemaker v. State, 971 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Tex.App.1998); In re Isiah B., 176 Wis.2d 639, 500 N.W.2d 637, 641 (1993); see also Zamora v. Pomeroy, 639 F.2d 662, 670-71 (10th Cir.1981); State v. Stein, 203 Kan. 638, 456 P.2d 1, 3 (1969); People v. Overton, 24 N.Y.2d 522, 301 N.Y.S.2d 479, 249 N.E.2d 366, 368 (1969). Other courts have concluded that a student does have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of a school locker, even if a school or state regulation exists. See In re Interest of S.C., 583 So.2d 188, 191-92 (Miss.1991); In re Adam, 120 Ohio App.3d 364, 697 N.E.2d 1100, 1106-07 (1997); In re Dumas, 357 Pa.Super. 294, 515 A.2d 984, 985-86 (1986); see also Commonwealth v. Snyder, 413 Mass. 521, 597 N.E.2d 1363, 1366 (1992); State v. Joseph T., 175 W.Va. 598, 336 S.E.2d 728, 736 (1985); In re Isiah B., 500 N.W.2d at 648 (Bablitch, J., concurring) (“Negating a constitutional ‘expectation’ of privacy based upon whether or not a person was notified of the impending search sets a dangerous precedent for intrusions upon Fourth Amendment rights.”)- In this case, both Muscatine school district policy and state law clearly contemplate and regulate searches of school lockers. Nevertheless, we believe Jones maintained a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his locker.

T.L.O. involved the search of a student’s purse, but a student’s locker presents a similar island of privacy in an otherwise public school. See William G. Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, 59 Iowa L.Rev. 739, 773 (1974). Numerous permissible items of a private nature are secreted away within a locker on a daily basis with the expectation that those items will remain private. See id.; see also In re Adam, 697 N.E.2d at 1108; In re Dumas, 515 A.2d at 985. In fact, Muscatine’s school policy effectively presumes this to be the case and protects this interest: in those situations in which the school seeks to search a locker, the school’s rules contemplate the presence of the student or at least a “waiver” of the student’s opportunity to be present and supervising the search. Moreover, the school rules and state law related to search and seizure in schools are premised on a presumption of privacy; such legislation would likely be unnecessary if no expectation of privacy existed in the first place. Each of these factors indicates a broad societal recognition of a legitimate expectation of privacy in a school locker. Accordingly, we conclude that a student such as Jones has a measure of privacy in the contents of his locker.

V. Character of the Intrusion.

We must next “consider the character of the intrusion imposed by the [search] [p]olicy.” Earls, 536 U.S. at 832, 122 S.Ct. at 2566, 153 L.Ed.2d at 746. The district court concluded the actions of the school officials were overly intrusive in light of what the court perceived to be unreasonable grounds to search Jones’ particular locker. However, we believe the locker search was not overly intrusive, especially in light of the underlying governmental interest and broader purpose of the search.

The locker cleanout was premised on the need to maintain a proper educational environment, which school officials had determined was undermined by violations of school rules and potential violations of the law. Most students cooperated in the school’s efforts to check the lockers for such violations. Although there was no indication that students on the day of the original cleanout had the contents of their lockers searched, the students were also present and supervised by a teacher who was responsible for observing the contents of the locker and ensuring the cleanout functioned as planned. Moreover, the teacher supervisors surely could have communicated with a student present at the locker about its contents and taken further steps if the situation warranted.

The search on the second day came under different circumstances. The advantage of carrying out the cooperative clean-out and inspection of the previous day had passed. Students who had been advised that they were to report to their lockers for a cleanout had failed to do so, and caused the school to switch to an alternative method to ensure the cleanout was achieved. On entering Jones’ locker, the only item in sight was the blue coat. The school officials believed that trash, supplies, or other items could be in the coat pockets, and did not have the advantage of turning to Jones to ask him about its contents, as they likely could have done the day before. For this reason, they decided to make a cursory check of the coat for such items. Although they found the bag of marijuana, they just as well could have found a banana. peel. The scope of the search was supported by the underlying purpose of the search.

While it is possible that there would have been alternative ways to check the coat’s contents, constitutional search and seizure provisions do not require the least intrusive action possible. See id. at 837, 122 S.Ct. at 2569, 153 L.Ed.2d at 749; Shade v. City of Farmington, 309 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir.2002); Breuer, 577 N.W.2d at 49-50. Instead, they require a measure of “reasonableness, under all the circumstances.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. at 742, 83 L.Ed.2d at 734. Under this standard, we conclude the search of the contents of Jones’ locker was not overly intrusive.

VI. Nature and Immediacy of School’s Concerns and Efficacy of Search Policy in Meeting Them.

The education of the students of the State of Iowa is a profound responsibility vested, ultimately, in the capable hands of local teachers, administrators, and school boards. What may be a daunting task to begin with is only made more difficult by the presence of various distractions ranging from excessive trash and missing supplies to — potentially—more troublesome items, such as controlled substances or weapons. What was observed by the Court in T.L.O. nearly twenty years ago remains true — if not truer — today: “Maintaining order in the classroom has never been easy, but in recent years, school disorder has often taken particularly ugly forms: drug use and violent crime in the schools have become major social problems.” See id. at 339, 105 S.Ct. at 741, 83 L.Ed.2d at 733. These developments serve as the backdrop against which the conduct of school officials must be considered, especially as it relates to their duty to educate students while also protecting them from numerous threats to that mission. See id. (“Against the child’s interest in privacy must be set the substantial interest of teachers and administrators in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds.”).

The principal of the school testified that the annual winter break locker cleanout was conducted by the school to prevent violations of both school rules related to the accumulation of trash and school supplies and the sharing of lockers and the law related to possession of controlled substances and weapons. School officials were aware that students tended to accumulate excessive trash and supplies in their lockers and sometimes shared the lockers against school policy. Moreover, they knew that if controlled substances or weapons were present in the school, either type of item would present a threat to the school environment that they were responsible for maintaining.

To counteract the problems caused by these items, the school presented reasonable notice to the student body and attempted to check the lockers with student assistance. Some students, including Jones, did not follow this procedure and left the school with little choice of methods by which it could carry out what it considered to be a legitimate method by which school rules could be maintained. Although the school did not have individualized suspicion of rule or law violations before the locker cleanout operation, constitutional search and seizure provisions include no irreducible requirement that such suspicion exist. See Earls, 536 U.S. at 829, 122 S.Ct. at 2564, 153 L.Ed.2d at 744 (citation omitted); Acton, 515 U.S. at 653, 115 S.Ct. at 2391, 132 L.Ed.2d at 574-75 (citing T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 342 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. at 743 n. 8, 83 L.Ed.2d at 735 n. 8). Moreover, it would be contrary to the mission of our educational system to force schools to wait for problems to grow worse before allowing steps to be taken to prevent those problems. See Earls, 536 U.S. at 835-36, 122 S.Ct. at 2568, 153 L.Ed.2d at 748. Given the public school context in which this controversy arose and the present realities of public education, we conclude that the search conducted by school officials was proper.

VII. Conclusion.

Although students are not stripped of constitutional protections in the school context, those protections must be balanced against the necessity of maintaining a controlled and disciplined environment in which the education of all students can be achieved. Thus, while students maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of their school locker, that privacy may be impinged upon for reasonable activities by the school in furtherance of its duty to maintain a proper educational environment. The search of Jones’ locker was permissible in light of these principles, and the district court’s grant of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search was in error. For that reason, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      . Neither party disputes that the building aides (and the principal) are "government officials” subject to constitutional search and seizure provisions. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333, 105 S.Ct. 733, 738, 83 L.Ed.2d 720, 729 (1985) (acknowledging that the Fourth Amendment’s "prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials”); see also 2 Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 16.1, at 758-59 (3d ed.1999) (describing the "state action” requirement).

      . To this end, the Supreme Court has also observed, "[in] the context of safety and ad- . ministrative regulations, a search unsupported by probable cause may be reasonable ‘when "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” ’ ” Bd. of Ed. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 829, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 2564, 153 L.Ed.2d 735, 744 (2002) (citations omitted). “Significantly, [the] Court has previously held that 'special needs’ inhere in the public school context.” Id.

      . Although the Supreme Court has not expressly articulated the method by which the nature of a privacy interest should be measured in this context, the Court has used the language of ''typical” search and seizure analysis and referred to legitimate expectations of privacy in discussing the issue. See Earls, 536 U.S. at 831-32, 122 S.Ct. at 2565-66, 153 L.Ed.2d at 745-46; Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 654, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2391, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 575 (1995). The measure of a legitimate expectation of privacy is a calculus based on established principles .with which we are familiar, and we believe it provides the best method by which to measure the nature of a privacy interest. We therefore expressly adopt it as the measure of the nature of the privacy interest in this context.

      . Muscatine Community School District policy 502.7 provides, in part:
      All school property is held in public trust by the Board of Directors. School authorities may, without a search warrant, search students, student lockers, personal effects, desks, work areas or student vehicles. The search shall be in a manner reasonable in scope to maintain order and discipline in the schools, promote the educational environment, and protect the safety and welfare of students, employees and visitors to the school district facilities....

        Locker Searches

        Inspections — Although school lockers are temporarily assigned to individual students, they remain the property of the school district at all times. The school district has a reasonable and valid interest in insuring that the lockers are properly maintained. For this reason periodic inspections of lockers is permissible to check for cleanliness and vandalism. Periodic inspections of all or a random selection of lockers may be conducted by school officials in the presence of the student. Any contraband discovered during such searches shall be confiscated by school officials and may be turned over to law enforcement officials. Searches — The student's locker and its contents may be searched when a school official has reasonable and articulable suspicion that the locker contains illegal, or contraband items. Such searches should be conducted in the presence of another adult witness, when feasible.
      Muscatine high school officials also post “Notice to Search” fliers around the school indicating, "Students should be aware their assigned lockers will be jointly accessible to the student and school officials. Lockers may be subject to search at the discretion of school officials.”

      . Iowa Code section 808A.2(2) (2001) provides, in part:
      2. School officials may conduct periodic inspections of all, or a randomly selected number of, school lockers, desks, and other facilities or spaces owned by the school and provided as a courtesy to a student. The furnishing of a school locker, desk, or other facility or space owned by the school and provided as a courtesy to a student shall not create a protected student area, and shall not give rise to an expectation of privacy on a student's part with respect to that locker, desk, facility, or space....


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    HAUGE ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. Charles H. McGRIFF, Appellee.
    No. 02-0470.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    July 16, 2003.
    Randall G. Horstmann of Nyemaster, Goode, Voigts, West, Hansell & O’Brien, P.C., Des Moines, and Paul H. Linde, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for appellant.
    Matthew F. Hrubetz of Phil Watson, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
    Mark R. Whitmore of Bassford, Lock-hart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae ACA International.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal results from an unsuccessful attempt by Hauge Associates, Inc., a collection agency, to collect a $458.25 hospital bill for Clarke County Hospital. The alleged debtor is Charles H. McGriff. Both the small claims court and the district court believed that this court’s decision in Iowa Supreme Court Commission on Unauthorized Practice of Law v. A-1 Associates, Ltd., 623 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 2001), precludes a collection agency from suing on an account assigned to it for purposes of collecting monies owed the assignor.

Our A -1 Associates decision concerned an issue involving the alleged unauthorized practice of law by a collection agency. Our decision in that case was a reaffirmation of an earlier decision in Bump v. Barnett, 235 Iowa 308, 16 N.W.2d 579 (1944), which held that the assignment of a debt for purposes of enabling the assignee to bring suit for the amount owing to the assignor and remit any recovery, less a percentage commission, to the assignor, does not confer upon the assignee the status of pro se litigant sufficient to avoid a determination that the assignee is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

We stated in A-l Associates that “neither the recognized right of parties to assign choses in action nor the equally well-settled right to try one’s own case in court resolved the question of whether [the assignee’s] litigation activity on behalf of others constituted the unauthorized practice of law.” A-1 Assocs., 623 N.W.2d at 805. In holding that it did amount to unauthorized practice, we applied the following admonition from the Bump case.

Undoubtedly one might for example engage in the business of buying claims as investments and might take assignments of them to himself and maintain actions thereon in his own name. But when he does not purchase the claims and only-takes colorable assignment of them so he may render or cause to be rendered legal service to others and holds himself out as engaged in such practice, it is quite a different matter.

Bump, 235 Iowa at 313, 16 N.W.2d at 582. The considerations involving the unauthorized practice of law at issue in Bump and A-l Associates do not exist in the present case because Hauge Associates, Inc. was, at all times, represented by a licensed attorney.

The pronouncements that we refer to from the Bump and A-l Associates cases were not made in regard to the assignee’s status as a real party in interest. The real-party-in-interest status of the holder of an account for collection was first determined in Searing v. Berry, 58 Iowa 20, 11 N.W. 708 (1882). We stated in that case:

It is insisted that as the assignment of the judgment in favor of Allen was made to plaintiff without consideration, and merely for the purpose of enabling plaintiff to enforce its collection, he is not a real party in interest, so far as that judgment is concerned, and as to it he cannot support this action. But the plaintiff holds the legal title to the judgment, and according to the defendants’ position, is a trustee of Allen. The law regards him as the real party in interest to prosecute this suit to enforce the collection of the judgment.

Searing, 58 Iowa at 23-24, 11 N.W. at 709 (citations omitted). The conclusion that an assignee of an account for collection purposes may be considered to be the real party in interest for bringing suit on the claim was reaffirmed in Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. Long, 222 Iowa 506, 508, 268 N.W. 518, 519 (1936).

We find no reason to depart from the conclusions reached in the Searing and Carson Pirie Scott & Co. decisions concerning the real-party-in-interest status of an assignee for collection purposes. Iowa Code section 539.3 (2001), enacted after Searing and Carson Pirie Scott & Co. were decided, serves to reinforce the rights of assignees for collection purposes to sue in their own name.

We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court must be reversed. The case is remanded to the small claims court for further proceedings on the hospital’s claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      . Iowa Code section 539.3 provides:
      An open account of sums of money due on contract may be assigned. The assignee, including a person who takes assignment for collection in the regular course of business, has a right of action on the account to the assignee’s own name, subject to the defenses and counterclaims allowed against the instruments mentioned in section 539.2, before notice of the assignment is given to the debtor in writing by the assignee. In case of conflict Uniform Commercial Code, section 554.9318, controls.
      Iowa Code § 539.3.