Google's AI agent on Iowa law

 

This morning I received an email from Google advising me that I had been welcomed into the Bard research project, so I started asking questions.

Here's one question I asked, followed by Bard's response.

Question: "In the Iowa Supreme Court case STATE V. SMITHSON, the court ruled that Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts only applies in the case of active interference, and not for merely refusing to cooperate. Based on that ruling, would refusing to identify to a police officer be considered active interference?"

Answer: "No, refusing to identify to a police officer would not be considered active interference under the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Smithson. In that case, the court ruled that Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts only applies in the case of active interference, and not for merely refusing to cooperate. The court defined active interference as "an act that obstructs or impedes the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties." Refusing to identify oneself to a police officer does not meet this definition, as it does not obstruct or impede the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties."

"The court also noted that the purpose of Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts is to protect police officers from harm and to ensure that they can carry out their duties effectively. Refusing to identify oneself to a police officer does not pose a threat to the officer's safety or interfere with the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties."

"Therefore, the court concluded that refusing to identify oneself to a police officer is not a crime under Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts."

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the answer nails the answer perfectly. First, and most importantly, Bard doesn't purport to give any legal advise, and I'm sure anyone would be well advised not to use its responses in court without running them by an attorney as a minimum.

Secondly, in the referenced the Smithson case, Larry Smithson failed to turn down music when told to do so by a police officer. for which he was charged with a violation of Iowa Code Section 719.1, interference with official acts. As far as I know, Smithson was not charged for refusing to identify himself, as Bard is suggesting above, and therefore the fact pattern is inaccurate, but conceivably right on the point that interference does not mean refusing any demand a police officer wants to make.

Perhaps Bard provided a cogent argument that could be used in court, but it's only an example, and the court is free to disagree if it find the argument without merit. But is it a start? An idea starter? Possibly!

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Popular posts from this blog

A University City, Missouri police sergeant detained a man who flipped the bird and demanded identification

A "consensual stop" in West Des Moines, Iowa

Teenage migrant worker held for months following questionable police stop in Florida