Cline v. Union County, Iowa, 4-99-CV-20528.
| Decision Date | 30 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-99-CV-20528.,4-99-CV-20528. |
| Citation | 182 F.Supp.2d 791 |
| Parties | Dennis Scott CLINE, Plaintiff, v. UNION COUNTY, IOWA; Willard Von Tull, Deputy Sheriff, Union County Sheriff's Office; and John Coulter, Union County Sheriff, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Jeffrey S. Carter, Des Monies, IA, for plaintiff.
David J. W. Proctor, Sean M. O'Brien, Kristi V. Ralph, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, IA, for Union County, Iowa and Willard Von Tull.
Arnold O. Kenyon, III, Anderson Werner Holm & Steffes, Creston, IA, for John Coulter.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Clerk's No. 8), filed June 5, 2001. Plaintiff, Dennis Scott Cline, asserts state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Defendants — Union County, Iowa; John Coulter, Union County Sheriff; and Willard Von Tull, Union County Deputy Sheriff — move for summary judgment on the basis that Cline has not made a showing sufficient to establish the elements essential to his claims, Defendants are immune from liability under Iowa Code § 760.4(3) (2001), Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, and Cline has not established his section 1983 claim against Defendant Union County.
Cline filed his Resistance on July 27, 2001. Defendants filed a Reply on September 17, 2001. A hearing was held on September 25, 2001. This matter is fully submitted.
A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A court must consider the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the nonmovant must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to his case, and on which he has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Reed v. ULS Corp., 178 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir.1999). When a motion is made and supported as required in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. At the summary judgment stage, the court may not make determinations about the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are either undisputed or viewed in the light most favorable to Cline, the non-moving party.
Cline works as a contractor in Orient, Iowa. He asserts that in 1997, an employee, 18-year-old Bob Post, offered to sell him a used gun. Cline paid Post approximately $100 for the gun. Post told Cline about someone he knew who was quitting business and had used air compressors for sale. Cline bought a used air compressor from Post for approximately $100.
On September 12, 1997, Post's mother called the Union County Sheriff's Office and reported that Post had stolen an air compressor. The Sheriff's Office issued an arrest warrant for Post.
On September 15, 1997, a third party told Cline that the gun and air compressor he had bought from Post were stolen. Cline found Post and asked him to go with him to the Union County Sheriff's Office, where, on September 16, 1997, Deputy Von Tull arrested Post for theft of the air compressor and gun. Cline told officers he had no knowledge that the gun and air compressor were stolen. (Cline Aff. at 1.)
Sheriff Coulter and three deputies questioned Post and asked him to write a statement. Post contends that the officers kept telling him that if he did not cooperate, he, "would do at least 17 years in prison," but if he told them what they wanted to know, "they would make a deal that would be very favorable" to him. (Post.Aff.) Post asserts that because of the officers' threats, he changed his written statement several times until it said, "what they wanted it to say, which was that Denny Cline knew these items were stolen." Id. Post asserts he implicated Cline only after police threatened him. Id. Specifically, Post's written statement contained the following information regarding Cline:
On or about the 3rd of Sep[tember] Denny ask[ed] me Bob to get a[n] air [compressor]. I told him that it would be stolen. He told me to go ahead and get it. The same thing with the []45 cal[iber] gun. I told him it was stolen. He told me when they ask if he [knew] the things were stolen to tell them he had [no] idea and to keep his name [clear]. He gave me 100.00 for the air [compressor] and 100.00 for the gun.
Post also stated that 19-year-old Cory Brown, another of Cline's employees, participated in the thefts. On September 17, 1997, Union County officers arrested Brown and charged him with theft and conspiracy to commit theft. Brown stated that when he was arrested, and several times afterwards, the Union County Sheriff and his deputies interrogated him and told him that if he named Cline as ringleader of a theft conspiracy, Brown would receive a more favorable sentence than he would otherwise receive. (Brown Aff.) Brown refused to name Cline as ringleader, or to otherwise incriminate him, "because he was not involved in any of the thefts" in which Brown and his friends were involved. Id.
Cline gave officers the gun and air compressor he had bought from Post. Officers recovered other stolen items from various purchasers, none of whom the record indicates were arrested.
Cline said he would help Union County officials recover other objects stolen by Post and Brown. Cline talked with John Lovell, 17 years old, another employee, and learned he had a stolen four-wheeler to sell. Officers gave Cline a trailer and $1,000 in marked bills to buy Lovell's stolen four-wheeler. Cline arranged to meet Lovell on September 18, 1997, to buy the four-wheeler, but Lovell did not show up. Later that day, Sheriff Coulter, assisted by Deputy Von Tull, arrested Cline. Adair County Sheriff, Fred Skellinger, accompanied Coulter during Cline's arrest. Cline and Skellinger have a long-standing animosity toward each other stemming from Cline's firing of Skellinger's good friend. During his arrest, Cline stated he was innocent, and he said he would be willing to take a polygraph test.
Officers arrested Lovell on September 23, 1997, on felony theft and conspiracy charges. (Defs.' Ex. 11.) Officers also filed criminal charges against Megan Berry, Brown's girlfriend. Officers recorded interviews with Berry and Lovell on September 25, 1997. (Defs.' Ex. 5 & 6.)1 The parties dispute whether Berry's and Lovell's statements implicated Cline in theft. For the reasons discussed below, this dispute is not material to the Court's resolution of the present Motion.
After his arrest, Cline was released on bail. During the criminal proceeding against Cline, witness testimony incriminating Cline was recanted, and the charges against Cline were dismissed.
Cline alleges that Coulter and Von Tull arrested him without probable cause and intimidated witnesses into changing their statements to implicate Cline in criminal activity.
Iowa courts define false imprisonment as an unlawful restraint on freedom of movement or personal liberty. Valadez v. City of Des Moines, 324 N.W.2d 475, 477 (Iowa 1982). The elements of the tort are (1) detention or restraint against a person's will, and (2) unlawfulness of the detention or restraint. Nelson v. Winnebago Indus. Inc., 619 N.W.2d 385, 388 (Iowa 2000). The elements of a false-arrest claim are identical to a false-imprisonment claim. Kraft v. City of Bettendorf, 359 N.W.2d 466, 469 (Iowa 1984).
Under Iowa Code § 804.7, a warrantless arrest is authorized when a police officer has a "reasonable ground for believing" the person to be arrested has committed a crime. Iowa Code § 804.7(3). The "reasonable ground for belief" standard of Iowa Code section 804.7 is the same as probable cause. State v. Harris, 490 N.W.2d 561, 563 (Iowa 1992) (citing Kraft, 359 N.W.2d at 469). Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense is being committed. Harris, 490 N.W.2d at 563 (citing Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959)).
Facts that came to light after the arrest are irrelevant to the determination of whether probable cause existed at the time of the arrest. Christenson v. Ramaeker, 366 N.W.2d 905, 910 (Iowa 1985) (citing Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 103, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959)); see Children v. Burton, 331 N.W.2d 673, 681-82 (Iowa 1983). When the circumstances known to an officer at the time would cause a reasonable person to doubt the veracity of an informant's statements, the existence of probable cause to make an arrest is a fact question. Christenson, 366 N.W.2d at 910-11 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turnage v. Kasper.
...see also Se. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Hotle, 222 Ga.App. 161, 164(1)(e), 473 S.E.2d 256 (1996) (same). 60. See Cline v. Union County, Iowa, 182 F.Supp.2d 791, 799 (S.D.Iowa 2001) (holding that plaintiff seeking to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress had generated fac......
-
Roskens v. Graham
...only one, in which an officer's conduct is evaluated under the discretionary function immunity statute. See Cline v. Union Cnty., Iowa , 182 F. Supp. 2d 791, 799-801 (S.D. Iowa 2001). In Cline , the court considered whether defendants (including two sheriffs) were entitled to discretionary ......
-
Webster v. Westlake
...a choice based on plausible policy considerations," and discretionary function immunity does not apply. Cline v. Union Cnty. , 182 F. Supp. 2d 791, 800 (S.D. Iowa 2001). Further, Defendants Westlake and Kelly both implicated the City of Des Moines by stating they were trained that a person ......
-
Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo Cnty., Iowa, Corp., C12–3003–LTS.
...principle or procedure made by the municipal official who has final authority regarding such matters.’ ” Cline v. Union Cnty., Iowa, 182 F.Supp.2d 791, 802 (S.D.Iowa 2001) (quoting Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir.1999)). “A policy can be inferred from a single decision ta......