McCabe v. Macaulay

• Citation: 515 F.Supp.2d 944
• Decision Date: 04 September 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-CV-73-LRR.,05-CV-73-LRR.
• Parties: Alice McCABE and Christine Nelson, Plaintiffs, v. Bruce MACAULAY, Michael Parker, Holly Michael, the Iowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch, Linn County, Iowa, and Michelle Mais, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

515 F.Supp.2d 944

Alice McCABE and Christine Nelson, Plaintiffs, v. Bruce MACAULAY, Michael Parker, Holly Michael, the Iowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch, Linn County, Iowa, and Michelle Mais, Defendants.

No. 05-CV-73-LRR.

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

September 4, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David A. O'Brien, Willey, O'Brien, Mullin, Laverty & Hanrahan, LC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Zachary Carl Richter, Washington, DC, Jeffrey C. Peterzalek, Des Moines, IA, Todd Davis Tripp, Linn County Attorney Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendants.

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................949
                   II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ............................................949
                        A. Third Amended Complaint ...........................................949
                        B. Motion for Summary Judgment .......................................950
                        C. Fourth Amended Complaint ..........................................950
                        D. Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ...............................950
                  III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...................................950
                   IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS ......................................................951
                        A. The Players .......................................................951
                        B. Noelridge Park ....................................................951
                        C. The Rally .........................................................952
                            1. Background ....................................................952
                            2. Security measures .............................................952
                                a. Physical barriers .........................................953
                                b. Restrictions on entry .....................................953
                                c. Restrictions on adjoining rights-of-way ...................953
                                     i. Vehicular traffic ....................................953
                                    ii. Pedestrian traffic ...................................953
                

                d. Stationing of law enforcement officers ....................954
                            3. Briefings .....................................................955
                                a. Individual Federal Defendants' briefing ...................955
                                b. Iowa State Patrol Troopers' briefing ......................955
                            4. Invitations to protest ........................................956
                            5. Plaintiffs' arrests ...........................................956
                                a. Plaintiffs walk to the Bus Entrance .......................956
                                b. Parker confronts Plaintiffs ...............................957
                                c. Macaulay approaches McCabe ................................958
                                d. Macaulay orders Plaintiffs' arrests .......................958
                                e. Michael's actions .........................................958
                                f. Troopers Bailey and Busch arrest Plaintiffs ...............959
                            6. Detention at the poolhouse ....................................959
                            7. Cavity inspections ............................................959
                            8. All charges dropped ...........................................960
                   V. THE ARGUMENTS ..........................................................960
                  VI. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY .....................................................961
                 VII. PARKER AND MICHAEL .....................................................961
                VIII. FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS .................................................962
                       A. Violation of First Amendment Rights ................................963
                           1. Overview of First Amendment law ................................963
                           2. No facial challenge ............................................964
                           3. Analysis: as-applied challenge .................................965
                       B. Clearly Established ................................................969
                       C. Conclusion .........................................................969
                  IX. FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS ................................................970
                       A. Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights ...............................970
                           1. Overview of Fourth Amendment law ...............................970
                           2. Search-related rights ..........................................970
                           3. Seizure-related rights .........................................970
                               a. Unreasonable warrantless seizures ..........................970
                               b. No arguable probable cause .................................971
                                     i. Iowa Code § 719.1(1) ............................971
                                    ii. 18 U.S.C. § 3056(d) .............................971
                                   iii. 18 U.S.C. § 1752 ................................972
                       B. Clearly Established ................................................973
                       C. Conclusion .........................................................973
                   X. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS ................................................973
                  XI. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) CLAIMS ........................................974
                 XII. DISPOSITION ............................................................974
                

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 103) ("Renewed Motion"), filed by Defendants Bruce Macaulay, Michael Parker and Holly Michael ("Individual Federal Defendants").

II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

A. Third Amended Complaint

On April 7, 2006, Plaintiffs Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson filed a sixcount Third Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand ("Third Amended Complaint"). In the first five counts of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the Individual Federal Defendants violated five fundamental rights provided to Plaintiffs by the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the Individual Federal Defendants infringed upon their (1) rights to freedom of speech, (2) rights to freedom of assembly, (3) rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, (4) rights to equal protection and (5) rights to substantive due process. See U.S. Const. amends. I (speech and assembly), IV (search and seizure) and XIV (equal protection and due process); Iowa Const. art. I, §§ 6 (equal protection), 7 (speech), 8 (searches and seizures), 9 (due process) and 20 (assembly). In the sixth count of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs claimed that the Individual Federal Defendants conspired to violate their constitutional rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

On June 19, 2006, the Individual Federal Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 1, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for summary judgment. The court (1) substituted the United States as the defendant in place of the Individual Federal Defendants as to Plaintiffs' state law claims; (2) dismissed the state law claims against the United States without prejudice; (3) dismissed Plaintiffs' substantive due process claims with prejudice as to the Individual Federal Defendants; and (4) dismissed the portion of Plaintiffs' § 1985(3) claims that alleged that the Individual Federal Defendants violated the equal protection provision of such statute. See Order (docket no. 82), at 37-38. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), the court denied the remainder of the motion for summary judgment with leave to refile after Plaintiffs had an opportunity to conduct limited discovery on the threshold issue of qualified immunity. Id. at 37.

C. Fourth Amended Complaint

On September 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File [a] Fourth Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand ("Motion for Leave"). The Plaintiffs represented to the court that the proposed Fourth Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand ("Fourth Amended Complaint") "only adds Michelle Mais as a Defendant and [does] not substantively change the prior pleading filed by the Plaintiffs." Motion for Leave (docket no. 83-1), at 2. Plaintiffs stated that they "underst[ood] that the recent Order filed by the Court, ruling on the [Individual] Federal Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion, [would] apply to the allegations against those Defendants set out in [the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint]." Id. The Individual Federal Defendants did not resist the Motion for Leave. On September 8, 2006, the court granted the Motion for Leave, and the Clerk of Court docketed the Fourth Amended Complaint.

D. Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment

On January 10, 2007, the Individual Federal Defendants filed the instant Renewed Motion. On March 5, 7 and 8, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance. On April 9, 2007, the Individual Federal Defendants filed a Reply. The Renewed Motion is fully submitted and ready for decision. See LR 7.1.c.

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "An issue of fact is genuine when `a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party' on the question." Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). A fact is material when it is a fact that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and afford it all reasonable inferences. Baer Gallery, Inc. v. Citizen's Scholarship Found. of...