sentence, Baldón appealed. II. Scope and Standard of Review. “We review claims the district court failed to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the federal and state constitutions de novo.” State v. Dewitt, 811 N.W.2d 460, 467 (Iowa 2012). When presented with such a claim, “ ‘we make an independent evaluation [based on] the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record.’ ” State v. Kurth, 813 N.W.2d 270, 272 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 522-23 (Iowa 2011)). “ ‘Each case must be evaluated in light of its unique circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d at 523). III. Issue Presented. The fighting issue presented to the district court in response to the motion to suppress was whether Baldón consented to the search by signing 1977) (<HOLDING>); People v. Reyes, 19 Cal.4th 743, 80
holding released offenders do not voluntarily consent to all conditions of parole holding probationers acceptance of search provision of parole agreement did not constitute freely and voluntarily given consent holding that the collateral consequences of a parole revocation were insufficient to create a case or controversy after the petitioner was released holding that parole is not a right in pennsylvania recognizing that it is well established that where a state provides a discretionary parole regime prisoners do not have a liberty or property interest in parole