Vander Lynden v. Crews
Citation | 205 N.W.2d 686 |
Decision Date | 28 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 55348,55348 |
Parties | Kenneth E. VANDER LINDEN, Appellant, v. Paul CREWS et al., Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Bert A. Bandstra, Knoxville, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and Larry M. Blumberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Des Moines, for appellee Paul Crews.
Heard by MASON, RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REES, UHLENHOPP, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ.
This appeal is from an order of the trial court sustaining motion for summary judgment of defendant and sole appellee, Paul Crews, who with the other defendants had been sued by plaintiff for damages based upon plaintiff's claim he had been maliciously prosecuted by defendants.
Defendant Crews, on October 19, 1969, was Secretary of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners, and was designated as Director of Drug Law Enforcement. His duties embraced planning, organizing and directing field operations necessary to control illegal narcotic and dangerous drug traffic, to investigate complaints or incidents of pharmacy law violations, and to gather evidence and assist in the preparation of court cases against violators. Plaintiff Vander Linden was the owner and proprietor of a pharmacy in Pella. On October 19, 1969 he was arrested by defendant Crews without a warrant and taken before a justice of the peace where Crews executed and filed a preliminary information charging plaintiff with the sale of stimulant drugs without a prescription in violation of chapter 189 of the Acts of the 62nd General Assembly (now chapter 204A, Code of Iowa, 1971).
Plaintiff was indicted by the grand jury of Marion County, and was later tried to a jury which returned a verdict of acquittal; thereafter, plaintiff instituted his action against defendants based upon his claim of malicious prosecution.
Defendant-appellee Crews filed his motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavit, in which he alleged he was a public officer in his capacity as Secretary of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners, and was immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. Motion for summary judgment was sustained by trial court and plaintiff appeals.
In his petition, plaintiff alleged defendant Crews, between the dates of October 14, 1969 and October 19, 1969, maliciously conspired with defendant Snyder and arranged for the wrongful and malicious arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff, and further asserts that at the time the arrest without warrant of the plaintiff was made, that the defendants nor any of them had any reasonable grounds or probable cause for making said arrest. In his answer, defendant Crews denies the absence of reasonable grounds and probable cause for making the arrest and further denies he was activated by malice in the conduct of his duties including the arrest and detention of plaintiff.
In ruling upon defendant Crews' motion for summary judgment, the court found Crews, as Secretary of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners, occupied a position created by section 147.98 of the Code, 1971, and that he was designated as Director of Drug Enforcement under sections 147.95 and 147.99, The Code. The court found that as such secretary and director, defendant Crews is a public officer within the meaning of that term and as defined by this court in State v. Taylor, 260 Iowa 634, 144 N.W.2d 289.
Trial court further found defendant Crews should be granted immunity from suit where he was acting within the scope of his duties and the motion of said defendant for summary judgment was sustained, and as against said defendant plaintiff's petition was dismissed.
Plaintiff advances two errors upon which he relies for reversal: (1) that trial court erroneously held that defendant Crews was a 'public official' and not a 'peace officer', and (2) trial court erroneously extended to defendant Crews judicial immunity from civil suit bottomed on false arrest and malicious prosecution.
Section 147.98, The Code, provides that the Board of Pharmacy Examiners shall have the right to employ a full-time secretary who shall not be a member of the examining board, and at such compensation as may be fixed from time to time by the biannual salary act. Section 147.99 provides the secretary of the pharmacy examiners shall, upon the direction of said examiners, make inspections of alleged violations of the provisions of the act creating the Board of Pharmacy Examiners, and shall be allowed necessary traveling and hotel expenses in making such inspections.
Section 147.95 provides that the practice act insofar as it affects the practice of pharmacy shall be enforced by the Board of Pharmacy Examiners, and that officers, agents, inspectors and representatives of the Board of Pharmacy Examiners shall have all the powers and status of peace officers when enforcing the act.
Section 204A.8, The Code, 1971, is embraced in the statute which is designed to regulate traffic in depressant, stimulant, counterfeit and hallucinogenic drugs. The duties of enforcing the statute are imposed upon the Board of Pharmacy Examiners. Section 204A.8 provides:
We agree with trial court defendant Crews was a public officer. This court considered fully the question of the status of one holding a public position in our early case of State v. Spaulding, 102 Iowa 639, 72 N.W. 288, 289. Also, in State v. Taylor, 260 Iowa 634, 144 N.W.2d 289, 292, we said five essential elements are required by most courts to make a public employment a public office, namely: (1) the position must be created by the constitution or legislature, or through authority conferred by the legislature; (2) a portion of the sovereign power of government must be delegated to that position; (3) the duties and powers must be defined directly or impliedly by the legislature or through legislative authority; (4) the duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than the law; and (5) the position must have some permanency and continuity and not be only temporary and occasional. See also cases cited in State v. Taylor, Supra.
We note, also, section 748.3, The Code, 1971, defines 'peace officers'. Said section provides:
'The following are 'peace officers':
'2. Constables.
Irrespective of the foregoing statute, we hold defendant Crews came within the guidelines laid down in State v. Taylor, Supra, and that as Secretary of the Board of Pharmacy Examiners he is a 'public officer'.
immunity is a matter of first impression here. This is virtually correct insofar as the question of governmental immunity pertains to a person who does not occupy a judicial position.
We have had occasion to consider the question of judicial immunity as it applies to judicial officers, particularly, justices of the peace. In Huendling v. Jensen, 168 N.W.2d 745, 749 (Iowa 1969), we have said justices of the peace are immune from civil liability even though they act in excess of their jurisdiction. At page 751 of 168 N.W.2d (in quoting from Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall, 335, 347, 80 U.S. 335, 347, 20 L.Ed. 646), this court said:
We have more recently, in Osbekoff v. Mallory, 188 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1971), reiterated our stand that the doctrine of judicial immunity extends to courts of limited jurisdiction, but have also announced the rule that when a minor magistrate acts wholly without jurisdiction, civil liability attaches for his malicious and corrupt abuse of process, and his willful and malicious oppression of any person under the pretense of acting in his official capacity. See Osbekoff v. Mallory, Supra, at page 300 of 188 N.W.2d. We have not, however, extended the doctrine of judicial or governmental immunity to other offices of a nonjudicial character, and decline to do so now.
We have reviewed authorities from other jurisdictions, and find the troublesome question of the extension of judicial or governmental immunity to nonjudicial officers to be obscured by a considerable penumbra. We are aware the federal courts and the courts of sister jurisdictions, notably California, have extended the protection of the doctrine to all sorts of minor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.
...v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329, 264 S.E.2d 878 (1980); Kajiya v. Dep't of Water Supply, 2 Haw.App. 221, 629 P.2d 635 (1981); Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa, 1973); Neal v. Donahue, 611 P.2d 1125 (Okla., 1980); Yotvat v. Roth, 95 Wis.2d 357, 290 N.W.2d 524 (1980).41 See, e.g., Scheuer v.......
-
Venckus v. City of Iowa City
...Caselaw for Police Officers. The majority’s statements are overbroad and flatly contrary to Iowa caselaw. In Vander Linden v. Crews , 205 N.W.2d 686, 687 (Iowa 1973), Paul Crews was secretary of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners and the director of Drug Law Enforcement. Crews arrested Va......
-
Chinwuba v. Larsen
...have recognized as to other officers only a conditional privilege." Id., reporters' notes on clause (b); see, e.g., Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686, 691 (Iowa 1973) (no absolute privilege for state board of pharmacy secretary); Vigoda v. Barton, 348 Mass. 478, 204 N.E.2d 441, 445 (19......
-
Holmgren v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
...of importance, dignity and independence to the Jorgenson criteria comports with the law in other jurisdictions. E.g., Vander Linden v. Crews, 205 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1973); Steece v. State Dept. of Agriculture, 504 So.2d 984 (La.Ct.App.1987); Meiland v. Cody, 359 Mich. 78, 101 N.W.2d 336 (1960......