Bates v. Richardson

Decision Date25 July 2022
Docket Number18-CV-30 CJW-MAR
PartiesDERRICK JEROME BATES, Plaintiff, v. TYLER RICHARDSON and WAYNE JERMAN, in their individual and official capacities and the CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

DERRICK JEROME BATES, Plaintiff,
v.

TYLER RICHARDSON and WAYNE JERMAN, in their individual and official capacities and the CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-30 CJW-MAR

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

July 25, 2022


ORDER

C. J. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND

II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Lawfulness of Arrest for Interference with Official Acts

B. Qualified Immunity as to Officer Richardson

C. Iowa Common Law False Arrest Claim

D. Liability of Chief Jerman and the City under Section 1983 1. Chief Jerman in His Individual Capacity

2. Chief Jerman in His Official Capacity and the City

V. CONCLUSION

1

This matter is before the Court on defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 68). Defendants incorporated a statement of material facts identical to that filed in their initial motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 68-2). Plaintiff timely filed a brief in resistance. (Doc. 70). Plaintiff incorporated his initial response to defendants' statement of material facts. (Doc. 44). Defendants timely filed a brief in reply to plaintiff's resistance. (Doc. 71). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2016, at approximately 3:21 P.M., Cedar Rapids, Iowa police officers responded to a 911 report of a disturbance. (Doc. 41-2, at 2). The dispatcher informed the officers that “3 black males that live in corner house by al[le]y are outside arguing” and “one displayed a handgun.” (Doc. 41-3, at 33, 57). The location of the incident was described as “Higley Ave SE/ Wellington St SE.” (Doc. 41-3, at 57).

Cedar Rapids Police Officer Tyler Richardson was the first officer to arrive near the scene. On the way, Officer Richardson activated his emergency lights and siren, but turned them off within a block of arriving at the location.[1] Dashcam footage from Officer Richardson's squad car shows that as he neared the corner of Higley Avenue and Wellington Street, he stopped to speak with a woman who flagged him down. The woman told Officer Richardson that one of the males involved in the alleged gun disturbance went around the corner-presumably the corner at Higley Avenue and Wellington

2

Street-and was wearing either white and black clothing or white and blue clothing.[2] Officer Richardson then continued driving along Higley Avenue and turned right onto Wellington Street. As Officer Richardson turned onto Wellington Street, two males walking along the left side of Wellington Street came into view. The video shows one male-later identified as plaintiff-wearing a red shirt and dark pants and shows the other male-later identified as Lorenzo Irvin-wearing dark clothing. The males were walking in the opposite direction, away from the direction of Officer Richardson's approach.

Officer Richardson stopped his vehicle, got out, and called out “Stop. Stop.” The males turned their heads in response to Officer Richardson but kept walking. Officer Richardson then yelled “Yeah, you guys.” The two males then initially stopped and turned toward Officer Richardson, at which point the video shows that plaintiff's pants had a white stripe down the side and that Irvin's shirt had a white stripe down the right arm. Plaintiff replied “no, we didn't do nothing” and gestured toward Officer Richardson with his hand, as if waving him off. Plaintiff and Irvin then turned and continued walking away from Officer Richardson and toward an intersection. Plaintiff and Irvin began turning left at the intersection down the next street. A fence and a tree began to partially block plaintiff and Irvin from Officer Richardson's view as the pair turned left at the intersection.

Once plaintiff and Irvin began walking away from Officer Richardson after having paused, Officer Richardson began unholstering his gun and continued shouting commands for plaintiff and Irvin “stop right now, stop” and repeatedly commanded them to get on the ground. Plaintiff and Irvin continued to walk a few steps more. As Officer Richardson was shouting commands to stop, Officer Jared Jupin's squad car, which had

3

approached the scene from the opposite direction, came into view of Officer Richardson's dashcam. By the time Officer Jupin got out of his car, Officer Richardson had unholstered his gun and had it in hand, all the while walking toward plaintiff and Irvin, who were still walking away from the officers despite Officer Richardson's repeated commands to stop. Officer Jupin unholstered his weapon as well, and the two officers began closing in on plaintiff and Irvin while they continued to shout commands for plaintiff and Irvin to get on the ground.

Plaintiff and Irvin turned left at the intersection and disappeared from the view of Officer Richardson's dashcam. Officer Jupin's squad car, however, was positioned such that his dashcam captured the events that transpired following Officer Jupin's arrival on the scene.

The following facts are taken from the recording of events that were captured by Officer Jupin's dashcam. Officer Jupin left his car and began walking in front of his car, within the camera frame. As Officer Jupin did so, Officer Richardson repeatedly yelled “Get on the ground! Get on the ground now!” Plaintiff and Irvin, although no longer walking, did not immediately get on the ground. Eventually, the two males kneeled on the ground and once they were kneeling, a male voice shouted, “Face down!,” “Get on the ground now!,” “Face down right now!,” and “All the way down!” Plaintiff and Irvin did not immediately get on the ground, and the commands for plaintiff and Irvin to lay “Face down!” and to “Get on the ground now!” were repeated until plaintiff and Irvin finally laid on the ground face down.

Once both males were handcuffed, Officer Richardson ran back to his squad car and drove down the street in pursuit of a black male wearing a white shirt that Officer Richardson had spotted walking down the street a block or so away. Officer Richardson stopped his car, got out, and called to that male to stop. The male stopped. Officer Richardson instructed the male to put his hands on a stone wall next to the sidewalk. The

4

male complied. Officer Richardson then approached the male and performed a pat down search. Finding no weapon, Officer Richardson told the male he could stand up and turn around. Officer Richardson then spoke with the male to determine whether he was involved in the disturbance with the firearm. In his interactions with the male in the white shirt, Officer Richardson did not draw his firearm or handcuff the male.

Meanwhile, Officer Jupin remained alone with plaintiff and Irvin. Irvin remained quiet and made only minor movements. Plaintiff, even with his hands cuffed behind his back, shouted and moved about almost the entire time Officer Jupin was alone with the males. At some point, Officers Heidi Northland and Michael Kern arrived at the scene where Officer Jupin was supervising plaintiff and Irvin. Eventually, the officers assisted Irvin in moving into seated (and eventually a standing) position. Plaintiff refused the officers' assistance and managed to move himself into a seated position.

After officers unhandcuffed and released them, both plaintiff and Irvin chose to remain at the scene and continued to move freely and converse with each other, a third bystander, and the officers. Plaintiff remained on the scene for approximately fifteen minutes and then walked back toward his apartment. At that point Officers Richardson, Jupin and Northland again approached plaintiff and told him to stop. Plaintiff complied. Officer Richardson then placed plaintiff under arrest for Interference with Official Acts, in violation of Iowa Code Section 719.1(1). Officer Richardson testified in a deposition that he believed he had probable cause to also arrest Irvin, a minor, for Interference with Official Acts, but exercised his discretion not to do so. (Doc. 44-2, at 47). Officer Richardson stated that he made the decision to arrest plaintiff based solely on plaintiff's refusal to obey Officer Richardson's orders. (Doc. 41-3, at 5; Doc. 44-2, at 18). The complaint reflects that plaintiff was charged with Interference with Official Acts for “refusing to stop when instructed.” (Doc. 44-2, at 11). The officers took plaintiff to jail

5

and the following morning plaintiff was taken to the courthouse for his initial appearance. He was then released, however, and told that the charge had been dropped.

Plaintiff asserts that Officer Jupin “indicat[ed] in his report” that Officer Richardson arrested plaintiff because of plaintiff's actions and “due to comments[ ] he made when detained.” (Doc. 44-1, at 8). This is supported by the record. Officer Jupin's report contains the following statement: “After they had been released Officer Richardson reached me over the radio and stated that he would be pursuing charges for Interference with Official Acts on Bates due to the comments he made when Officer Richardson was ordering him to stop and get on the ground.” (Doc. 44-2, at 16).

Plaintiff also asserts that Officer Richardson “was admonished by the Linn County Attorney that a person cannot be charged with a crime for comments they make, no matter how offensive.” (Id.). This assertion is not supported by the record. In support of this assertion plaintiff cites to his appendix at pages 27-38 and specifically to Officer Jupin's deposition at pages 59-60 and 68. (Id.). Plaintiff's appendix at pages 27-38 contains excerpts from Officer Jupin's deposition. They do not, however, include pages 59-60. Page 36 contains pages 53 through 56 of the deposition transcript and page 37 contains pages 65 through 68 of the deposition. Pages 66 through 68 contain a discussion...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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