(quoting Paul M. Bator & James Vorenberg, Arrest, .Detention, Interrogation and Right to Counsel: Basic Problems and Legislative Solutions, 66 Colum. L. Rev. 62, 72 (1966))). Parole is simply one of those times when a choice to remain in prison with no constitutional rights involving search and seizure or to gain freedom with no constitutional rights involving search and seizure is simply “no choice at all.” Tamez, 534 S.W.2d at 692. When a constitutional right is at stake, more than a one-sided agreement is needed to establish waiver of the right. The obligation of courts to examine the voluntariness of an agreement is nothing new and is supported by our law of contracts. For instance, we refuse to enforce unconscionable contracts. See Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §
holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated holding a challenge of unconscionability to the whole contract as opposed to the arbitration provision specifically is an arbitrable matter not properly considered by the court holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract holding that courts should address a procedural unconscionability defense to the enforcement of an arbitration provision recognizing unconscionability as a generally available contract defense