in this appeal has not been preserved, he is not entitled to relief. V. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the decision of the court of appeals is vacated in part and the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED. All justices concur except WIGGINS, J., who concurs specially. 1 . The district court dismissed this charge pri- or to the start of trial. 2 . A few months prior to Rich, in State v. Holderness, 301 N.W.2d 733, 739-40 (Iowa 1981), we considered a kidnapping case in which the question of whether Iowa should adopt the incidental approach to our new kidnapping statute was rais 821 (2006) (<HOLDING>); State v. Scott, No. 88AP-346, 1988 WL 102010,
holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will holding removal of victim from one room to another was not mere asportation but sufficient evidence of a separate and independent act holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that where state alleged that burglarized structure was property of victim the branch manager of the firm that owned the property the victim had a sufficient possessory interest to support burglary charge where he was more than a mere employee but was the individual responsible for custody of the stolen items holding evidence sufficient for recklessly endangering another person where the appellant grabbed the victim around the neck and pulled her into a room