Baldwin v. Estherville

Citation333 F.Supp.3d 817
Decision Date14 September 2018
Docket NumberNo. C 15-3168-MWB,C 15-3168-MWB
Parties Gregory BALDWIN, Plaintiff, v. ESTHERVILLE, IOWA, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Jack Bjorn Bjornstad, Jack Bjornstad Law Office, Okoboji, IA, for Plaintiff.

Douglas L. Phillips, Rene Charles Lapierre, Klass Law Firm LLP, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER, THE PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLAINTIFF'S STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, AND CERTIFICATION OF FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE IOWA SUPREME COURT

MARK W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. THE CITY'S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER...826
B. Analysis...827
1. Applicable standards...827
2. Application of the standards...828
3. Summary...832
III. THE RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...833
A. The Pending Motion...833
C. The Iowa Constitutional Claims...834
1. Nature of the claim or claims...834
2. The Iowa constitutional violation...835
a. Arguments of the parties...835
b. Discussion...835
i. Requirements of the Iowa Constitution...835
ii. Application of the Iowa standards...838
c. Summary ...8403. "All due care" qualified immunity...840
a. Arguments of the parties...841
b. Discussion...841
i. Who decides the defense and when?...841
ii. The "all due care" defense...842
iii. "All due care" of the officers...845
c. Summary...848
IV. CERTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS...848
B. Questions Of First Impression...849
1. Questions already identified...849
2. Additional questions...850
C. Application Of The Certification Standards ...851
D. Opportunity To Refine Or Add To The Questions To Be Certified...852
V. CONCLUSION...852

This case arises from the plaintiff's arrest by city police officers for riding his ATV on and in a ditch beside a city street, allegedly in violation of a state statute that the officers believed had been, but was not, incorporated into the city's code of ordinances. Although I granted summary judgment for the city and the individual police officers on the plaintiff's claim of violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and his claim of false arrest, I reserved ruling on the plaintiff's claims against the city for violations of the Iowa Constitution. I certified to the Iowa Supreme Court the question of whether a defendant can raise a defense of qualified immunity to an individual's claim for damages for violation of article I, §§ 1 and 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court has now answered that question in the affirmative and adopted the available qualified immunity defense, in a thoughtful majority opinion over an equally thoughtful defense. The city seeks leave to amend its answer to assert the qualified immunity defense newly-minted by the Iowa Supreme Court. I must decide whether to allow the proposed amendment and whether to rule on all the questions raised in the parties' reanimated cross-motions for summary judgment and supplemental briefing on the Iowa constitutional claims, in light of the Iowa Supreme Court's answer to the certified question, or, once again, to certify some of those questions to the Iowa Supreme Court.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Factual Background

The factual background to this case is set out in considerable detail in my prior ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, see Baldwin v. Estherville, Iowa , 218 F.Supp.3d 987, 989-93 (N.D. Iowa 2016), then by the Iowa Supreme Court in Baldwin v. City of Estherville , 915 N.W.2d 259, 261-65 (Iowa 2018). For present purposes, suffice it to say that, on November 10, 2013, Officers Reineke and Hellickson, of the Estherville City Police, were shown a video by a resident in the Estherville area of a person the officers identified as plaintiff Gregory Baldwin riding a 4-wheeler ATV that proceeded along North 4th Street and turned into a ditch, using the north Joe Hoye Park entrance, after which it continued in the ditch until it reached West 14th Avenue North, where it returned to the roadway.

The officers then reviewed IOWA CODE CH. 321I, which, inter alia , permitted operation of ATVs only on streets designated by cities, see IOWA CODE § 321I.10(3), because the officers believed that Chapter 321I had been incorporated by reference into the City's Code of Ordinances when Chapter 321 was incorporated. They also consulted The Handbook of Iowa All–Terrain Vehicle and Off–Highway Motorcycle Regulations (Handbook ), which the defendants contended is a handbook frequently relied upon by police officers when determining whether off-road vehicles are operating in compliance with applicable laws. Finally, they discussed the matter with the City's police chief and a police captain. They concluded that the activity shown in the video amounted to a violation of City Ordinance E-321I.10. However, that Ordinance was not valid or in effect at the time, because it did not exist.

Officer Reineke prepared a citation and attempted to serve it on Baldwin at his home, but he was not there. Officer Reineke then refiled the citation with the notation "Request Warrant." On November 12, 2013, a state magistrate entered an order directing that a warrant issue. On November 13, 2013, Officer Hellickson served the warrant on Baldwin and took him to jail. Baldwin's wife posted bond, and Baldwin later pleaded not guilty to the charge.

In the days that followed, the City Attorney discovered that the City had not included IOWA CODE CH. 321I when it incorporated IOWA CODE CH. 321 into the City's Code of Ordinances. The City Attorney was granted leave to amend the charge to allege a violation of a different ordinance, City Ordinance 219–2(2). City Ordinance 219–2 generally permits ATVs to be operated on City streets except where prohibited, but subsection (2) prohibits operation of ATVs "in city parks, playgrounds, or upon any publicly-owned property." On Baldwin's Motion For Adjudication Of Law Points And To Dismiss, the Iowa District Court found that the cited act was not a violation of the City's Code of Ordinances as written and dismissed the case. The state court did so only after making two key constructions of pertinent City Ordinances: (1) that the plain meaning of "street" in City Ordinances included the "ditch," and (2) that "publicly-owned property" in City Ordinance 219–2(2), to the extent that it conflicted with another ordinance defining "street," did not include the "ditch" of a City street. See Baldwin , 218 F.Supp.3d at 1000-1001.

B. Procedural Background

Again, some of the procedural background is set out in more detail in my ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. See Baldwin , 218 F.Supp.3d at 993-95. Suffice it to say that, on November 4, 2015, Baldwin filed his Petition, which became docket no. 3 in this action, in the Iowa District Court in and for Emmet County, against the City and Officers Reineke and Hellickson, in their individual and official capacities. He asserted four claims arising from his citation and arrest for the allegedly improper operation of his ATV on November 10, 2013. In Count I, against the City, Baldwin alleged a violation of article I, § 8 of the Iowa Constitution by subjecting him to an unreasonable seizure. In Count II, against defendants Reineke and Hellickson, in their individual capacities, he alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by subjecting him to an unreasonable seizure. In Count III, against the City, he alleged a violation of article I, § 1 of the Iowa Constitution by violating his right to freedom, liberty, and happiness. Finally, in Count IV, against all defendants, he alleged a common-law claim of "false arrest." He sought—and still seeks—damages, interest, costs of the action, attorney's fees, and such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable.

The defendants removed this case to this court on November 20, 2015, based on federal question jurisdiction, with supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a), 1441(a), and 1446. Thereafter, on November 23, 2015, the defendants filed a joint Answer, denying Baldwin's claims and asserting various affirmative defenses, including immunity from suit.

On November 18, 2016, on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, I granted the defendants' motion as to Baldwin's claims of a federal constitutional violation in Count II and state law false arrest in Count IV, denied Baldwin's motion for summary judgment on those claims, and stayed those parts of Baldwin's motion seeking summary judgment on his claims of Iowa constitutional violations in Counts I and III pending a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court on whether it would review the decision in Conklin v. State , No. 14-0764, 863 N.W.2d 301, 2015 WL 1332003 (Iowa Ct. App. March 25, 2015) (table op.), which held that there is no private cause of action for a violation of the Iowa Constitution.1 On February 17, 2017, at the request of the parties, I continued the trial in this matter indefinitely until the Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling in either Conklin or State v. Godfrey , No. 15-0695, which also raised the question of whether the equal protection and due process provisions of the Iowa Constitution provide a direct action for damages.

On June 30, 2017, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its opinion in State v. Godfrey , 898 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2017), holding that the equal protection and due process clauses of the Iowa Constitution, article I, §§ 6 and 9, are self-executing, such that a tort claim for monetary damages exists for violations of each, when the legislature has not provided an adequate remedy. The Iowa Supreme Court left open the question of whether defendants could assert qualified immunity as a defense to such claims. On June 30, 2017, the Iowa...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Clinton v. Garrett
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • July 30, 2021
    ..."malice and lack of probable cause," or a "lack of ‘reasonable ground’ for the conduct in question." Baldwin v. Estherville (Baldwin III), 333 F. Supp. 3d 817, 842–45 (N.D. Iowa 2018).10 Judge Bennett further predicted that the all due care standard requires an official to take affirmative ......
  • Davis v. Dawson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • June 17, 2021
    ...at 281.In processing the Iowa Supreme Court's "all due care" standard, the federal district court in Baldwin v. Estherville (Baldwin III), 333 F. Supp. 3d 817, 844-45 (N.D. Iowa 2018), reasoned the factors a court may consider in determining whether the "all due care" qualified immunity def......
  • Young v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • October 27, 2021
    ..., 915 N.W.2d 259, 281 (Iowa 2018). The all due care immunity defense also applies to municipalities. Baldwin v. City of Estherville (Baldwin III) , 333 F. Supp. 3d 817, 832 (N.D. Iowa 2018). Although Iowa appellate courts have not yet defined the exact contours of all due care immunity, thi......
  • Baldwin v. City of Estherville
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 14, 2019
    ..."street," did not include the "ditch" of a City street. SeeBaldwin [I ], 218 F. Supp. 3d at 1000–1001. Baldwin v. Estherville (Baldwin III ), 333 F. Supp. 3d 817, 823–24 (N.D. Iowa 2018) ; see Baldwin v. Estherville (Baldwin IV ), 336 F. Supp. 3d 948, 950 (N.D. Iowa 2018) (order certifying ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT