Weizberg v. City of Des Moines

• Decision Date: 31 August 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-1489,17-1489
• Citation: 923 N.W.2d 200
• Parties: Reuven WEIZBERG, David Peter Veng-Pedersen, Jacob Patrick Dagel, Appellees, v. CITY OF DES MOINES, Iowa, Appellant, and Gatso USA, Inc., Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

923 N.W.2d 200

Reuven WEIZBERG, David Peter Veng-Pedersen, Jacob Patrick Dagel, Appellees,
v.
CITY OF DES MOINES, Iowa, Appellant,
and
Gatso USA, Inc., Appellee.

No. 17-1489

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed August 31, 2018
Amended March 7, 2019

Michelle Mackel-Wiederanders, Assistant City Attorney, Des Moines, for appellant.

James C. Larew of Larew Law Office, Iowa City, for appellees Reuven Weizberg, David Peter Veng-Pedersen, and Jacob Patrick Dagel.

Paul D. Burns and Laura M. Hyer of Bradley & Riley, PC, Iowa City, for appellee Gatso USA, Inc.

APPEL, Justice.

923 N.W.2d 203

In this companion case to Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids , 922 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2019), and Leaf v. City of Cedar Rapids , 923 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2018), we consider challenges to an automated traffic enforcement (ATE) program implemented by the City of Des Moines (the City) and its private contractor, Gatso USA, Inc. (Gatso).

The plaintiffs challenged the Des Moines ATE program on a number of grounds. The plaintiffs claimed that the ATE program violated equal protection, due process, and privileges and immunities clauses of the Iowa Constitution. The plaintiffs further argued that the ATE system was invalid because of preemption by state and local law and unlawful delegation of governmental duties. Because of the legal defects in the ATE system, the plaintiffs asserted the defendants were unjustly enriched. The plaintiffs sought class-action certification. The plaintiffs asked for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages.

On the City’s motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based upon preemption; unlawful delegation of governmental powers; equal protection, substantive due process, privileges and immunities under the Iowa Constitution; and unjust enrichment. The court refused to grant the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim. The court at the same time granted Gatso’s motion for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims.

Later, the district court considered the remaining procedural due process claim in the case on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ruled that the City’s ATE system as implemented violated procedural due process. The court also resurrected the previously dismissed unjust enrichment claim and ruled the City was unjustly enriched. The court certified a class of vehicle owners who were cited for violating the ATE ordinance, pursued an administrative challenge, but did not request the City file a municipal infraction proceeding in district court.

The City appealed and the plaintiffs cross-appealed.

For the reasons stated below, on the City’s appeal, we reverse the district court’s determination that the ATE system as implemented by the City violated procedural due process.

On the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, we affirm the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss on grounds of preemption. We also affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Gatso on the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims.

We reverse, however, the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ equal protection, substantive due process, and privileges and immunities claims. We reverse the district court’s holding that there is no action for damages under the Iowa Constitution.

In light of our rulings, we vacate the district court’s order on unjust enrichment against the City and the district court’s order on class certification.

We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

923 N.W.2d 204

I. Factual and Procedural Summary.

A. The ATE Ordinance. In 2011, the City enacted an ATE ordinance (the ordinance). Des Moines, Iowa, Mun. Code § 114-243 (2015). The ordinance generally recites the power of municipalities to implement ATE systems and to hire private contractors to implement them. Id. § 114-243(a). The ordinance provides that although the private contractor will provide video images to the police department for review, the police department will determine which vehicle owners are in violation of the City’s traffic control ordinances and therefore who will receive a notice of violation for the offense. Id.

Pursuant to the ordinance, the City entered into a contract with Gatso. Under the contract, Gatso agreed to install, operate, and maintain fixed speed systems in accordance with standard installation practices at locations the City desired. Gatso agreed to perform maintenance of the ATE system, including testing the camera settings and operation. The contract further provided that Gatso prepare violation packages and forward them to the police department for review. After approval, Gatso agreed to send citations by mail to vehicle owners and agreed to establish a toll-free help desk telephone number for vehicle owners to discuss citations and make payments.

The ordinance establishes civil penalties for speeding violations. Id. § 114-243(c). The vehicle owner is liable for the civil penalty unless the vehicle owner shows that a stolen vehicle report was made on the vehicle encompassing the time period in question. Id. § 114-243(c)(3).

When a person receives a traffic citation, the ordinance establishes a procedure for disputing the citation by requesting that the City issue a municipal infraction citation and proceed to have the matter determined in district court. Id. § 114-243(d). Specifically, the ordinance provided,

(d) Penalty and appeal.

....

(2) A recipient of an automated traffic citation may dispute the citation by requesting an issuance of a municipal infraction citation by the police department. Such request will result in a required court appearance by the recipient and in the scheduling of a trial before a judge or magistrate at the Polk County Courthouse. The issuance of a municipal infraction citation will cause the imposition of state mandated court costs to be added to the amount of the violation in the event of a guilty finding by the court.

(3) If a recipient of an automated traffic citation does not pay the civil penalty by the stated due date or request a trial before a judge or magistrate, a municipal infraction citation will be issued to the recipient by certified mail from the police department. Said municipal infraction citation will result in a mandatory court appearance by the recipient as well as imposition of state mandated court costs if a finding of guilty is made by the court.

Id. § 114-243(d)(2)–(3).

B. Iowa Department of Transportation Evaluation and Order. The utilization of ATE systems by Iowa municipalities caused the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) to promulgate rules related to their use. Iowa Admin. Code ch. 761—144. Pursuant to the rules, municipalities utilizing ATE systems were required to file reports on each location with the IDOT. Id. r. 761—144.5(1). The IDOT then analyzed the reports to determine

923 N.W.2d 205

whether to approve the ATE systems at the locations. Id. r. 761—144.5(3). Further, municipalities were also required to file annual reports evaluating the effectiveness of the ATE system on improving traffic safety. Id. r. 761—144.7.

The IDOT’s 2015 evaluation of the use of equipment by the City’s ATE system at the I-235 location concluded that the City should remove the equipment. According to the evaluation, the location "experiences a low crash rate" while the number of speed citations were "extremely high." The evaluation order noted that under the IDOT’s administrative rules, ATE systems "should only be considered in extremely limited situations on interstate roads because they are the safest class of any roadway in the state and they typically carry a significant amount of non-familiar motorists."Id. r. 761—144.4(1)(c ).

The City appealed the evaluation. On appeal, the IDOT held that "the data does not provide convincing evidence that this location is unsafe for motorists and law enforcement conducting routine police work." The City continued the operation of the ATE equipment on I-235 and along with two other cities, filed an action challenging the authority of IDOT to promulgate the rules. In City of Des Moines v. Iowa Department of Transportation , we recently held that the IDOT lacked authority to promulgate its ATE rules. 911 N.W.2d 431, 434 (Iowa 2018).

C. Plaintiffs Alleged ATE Violations.

1. Weizberg . Reuven Weizberg is a resident of New York State. Weizberg is a musician who was in Des Moines for a performance. Weizberg received three notices of violation arising from events generated at the ATE system location on I-235 in May 2015.

The front page of the notices of violation received by Weizberg provided photos of the offending vehicle and license plate along with information regarding the date and time of the alleged violation. The front page declares that the motor vehicle owner is liable for payment of any penalty. The notice of violation declares that

[f]ailure to pay the penalty or contest liability by the due date is an admission of liability and will result in this penalty being forwarded to collections and to the Iowa Income Tax Offset Program or for filing in state district court.

A due date is provided on the...