Incentive-Disincentive Clause, HR-521, 1985

There is an urgent need to complete projects in high traffic urban areas in the shortest possible time. These road user benefits resulting from faster construction will minimize public inconvenience, safety hazards and a total cost to the public. The incentive - disincentive clause in the contract will encourage the contractor to expedite all phases in the contract. A copy of this special provision is part of this work plan and other details of construction are included in the plan and specification of Project F-65-4(34)--20-77.

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2002

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report FY2004, February 2005

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six months’ impact of Senate File 543 (which enacted a number of sentencing changes) on the justice system; monitoring of the correctional impact of this bill was at the request of several members of the legislature. Since then, the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Advisory Council has requested that CJJP monitor the correctional impact of enacted legislation of particular interest. This report covers monitoring results or future plans to monitor the following: 1. Changes in “crack” cocaine and “powder” cocaine penalties under Chapter 124.401 (effective FY2004; see p.3). 2. Commitments to prison involving manufacture, distribution, or possession of methamphetamine under Chapter 124.401 (see p.5). 3. Prosecution of offenders for child endangerment under Chapter 726.6(g) for permitting the presence of a child or minor at a location where a controlled substance manufacturing or a product possession violation occurs (see p.7). 4. Provision of an enhanced penalty for manufacturing of controlled substances under Chapter 124.401C when children are present and the offender is not charged under section 726.6(g) (see p. 7). 5. Creating a new offense when a retailer sells more than two packages of any product containing pseudoephedrine (chapter 126.23A) and providing for an enhanced penalty under Chapter 714.7C when a theft involves more than two packages of similar products (see p.8). 6. Establishment of parole eligibility at 70% of time served for persons sentenced under the “85% law” provisions of Iowa Code Section 902.12. (effective FY2005; see p. 9).

SPOC Collective Bargaining Agreement 2007-2009, July 2007

This Agreement made and entered into this 1st day of July 2007 at Des Moines, Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20 of the Iowa Code, by and between the State of Iowa (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) and the State Police Officers Council, and its appropriate affiliated sub-organizations (hereinafter referred to as the Council), as representatives of employees employed by the State of Iowa, as set forth specifically in the Recognition Clause.

Iowa Supreme Court, Marriage Case, docket No. 07-1449.

In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court today held that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

Compendium of Scheduled Violations and Scheduled Fines, July 2015

When a court imposes a fine or forfeiture for a violation of state law, or city or county ordinance, except an ordinance regulating the parking of motor vehicles, the court or the clerk of the district court shall assess an additional penalty in the form of a criminal penalty surcharge equal to thirty-five percent of the fine or forfeiture imposed.

Engineering Study for Reducing Sign Vandalism Final Report Highway Research Advisory Board Projec HR 246, June 1992

Sign vandalism has traditionally been a vexing problem for Iowa counties. The extent of the cost and incidence of these acts have never been fully ascertained, but a 1990 survey indicated that they cost Iowa counties more than 1.5 million dollars annually. In 1990, the Iowa Legislature recognized the seriousness of the problem and strengthened the existing sign vandalism law by increasing the penalty for illegal possession of a traffic control device from a simple to a serious misdemeanor. However, the courts must be willing to prosecute vandals to the magnitude provided in the Iowa Code. An educational campaign begun in 1987 involving over 200 Iowa school districts to educate students on the seriousness of the problem evidently did not have the effect of dramatically reducing the overall cost of sign vandalism in Iowa. This study sought to define the scope of the problem and possibly offer some effective countermeasures to combat sign vandalism and theft in Iowa.

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2003

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2006

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2007

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

State Legislation Monitoring Report, FY 2008

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning issued its first state legislation monitoring report in February 2002, covering the first six month’s impact of Senate File 543 on the justice system. SF 543, enacted during the 2001 legislative session, changed the maximum penalty for first-offense Burglary-3rd degree, and established new sentencing options available to the court: * An alternative determinate prison sentence for certain Class D felons * Extended felony sentence reconsideration from 90 days to one year

The Effectiveness of Domestic Abuse Protective Orders and Court Practices in Sentencing Violators, July 2011

Deterring abuse is important to ensuring safety among domestic violence and assault victims. Protective orders are tools aimed at restricting contact between the victim and the abuser to prevent subsequent violence. While empirical research has indicated that protective orders are effective, the extent of the effectiveness is uncertain because violation rates have varied widely from study to study. In addition, little research exists to explain how violations of protective orders are handled, which factors are considered when giving penalties, and whether certain situations lead to a given type of penalty.

Compendium of Scheduled Violations and Scheduled Fines, July 2016

When a court imposes a fine or forfeiture for a violation of state law, or city or county ordinance, except an ordinance regulating the parking of motor vehicles, the court or the clerk of the district court shall assess an additional penalty in the form of a criminal penalty surcharge equal to thirty-five percent of the fine or forfeiture imposed.