Case Law & Resources: Iowa
Citation
Issue Presented & Facts
Webb v. City of Waterloo, 2019 WL 6736219 (N.D. Iowa 2019).
Whether officer's use of force of discharging firearm was a "reasonable use of force" under the Fourth Amendment and Iowa Code Section 804.8.
​
Officer responded to reports of a fight. Officer approached a car but plaintiff driver began to drive away. Officer began to pursue with backup. Offer discharged weapon into car, claiming car was moving and about to run over the other officer (a claim which plaintiff denies). Plaintiff was struck in abdomen, arm, and chest.
Holding
Iowa law applies the same “objective reasonableness” standard under Section 804.8 as for determining if an officer has used excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. See Chelf v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 515 N.W.2d 353, 355-36 (Iowa App. 1994) (holding that the “reasonableness” inquiry under Iowa Code Section 804.8 is the same objective standard applied by the United States Supreme Court in Graham). Because the Court has found there exists a genuine issue of material fact whether Officer's conduct was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, so too must the Court find a genuine issue of material fact exists whether Officer's conduct was reasonable under Iowa Code Section 804.8.
​
Reference to I. C. A. § 804.8.
Chelf v Civil Service Com'n of City of Davenport, 515 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994)
Whether (1) evidence of disciplinary action taken in regard to other officers accused of using excessive force was irrelevant; (2) standard to determine whether officer had used reasonable force was an objective one; and (3) evidence supported conclusion that officer had used excessive force.
​
Former police officer sued city, seeking to set aside discharge for use of excessive force during an arrest. Officer attempted to strike plaintiff in the legs three to six times with his flashlight in order to gain control. One of the blows struck another officer whose hand was on plaintiff 's forehead, requiring four stitches. Defendant officer was told by another officer to was told to “back off” after stepping on the side of plaintiff 's head. Officer admits he was angry, emotional and upset during the incident.
Court found the “reasonableness” inquiry in Iowa Code section 804.8 is an objective standard, finding support for its interpretation in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1871–72 (1989). In Graham, the United *356 States Supreme Court looked at the issue of excessive force in the context of a civil rights case. Id. at 388, 109 S.Ct. at 1867, 104 L.Ed.2d at 450. The Court stated:
As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, ... the “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
Id. at 397, 109 S.Ct. at 1872, 104 L.Ed.2d at 456. The court adopted the same approach that specifically rejected a test that considered whether the officer acted in “good faith” or “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” because it puts in issue the subjective motivations of the individual officers. Id.
Court held officer's used excessive force. Although the resulting injuries were relatively minor, it raises serious questions about whether Officer Chelf has the self-control necessary in pursuit situations. When this incident is viewed in conjunction with a similar incident, the court found the officer “lacks the discretion, judgment and control that keeps a good officer from inflicting serious injury on a citizen, albeit a lawbreaker.”
Reference to I. C. A. § 804.8.
Johnson v. Civil Service Com'n of City of Clinton, 352 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1984)
Whether there was justification for suspension of officer after finding of excessive use of force due to a finding of malice.
​
Officer in response to high speed chase apprehended plaintiff and struck plaintiff in the back several times with a heavy metal flashlight while plaintiff was prone on the ground.
When making an arrest, a peace officer is justified in using that amount of force which he reasonably believes is necessary to effect arrest. Iowa Code § 804.8. Consequently, an assault only occurs if the peace officer does not reasonably believe the particular force was necessary in the circumstances.
Assuming without deciding that a finding of malice requires the intentional doing of a wrongful act with a design to injure, there is nevertheless substantial evidence of malice. The severity of the bruises belies Officer's claims of how the injury was inflicted. The harshness of the blows was unnecessary, particularly in light of the fact that Officer had help in subduing plaintiff and several other officers immediately arrived on the scene. The court held these facts alone support an inference of malice. In addition, the existence of malice is substantiated by Officer's own statement to the polygraph examiner that he used excessive force and he was mad at the time.
​
Reference to I. C. A. § 804.8.
Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 240 F.Supp2d 941 (S.D. Iowa 200)
Whether Iowa state use of force law was violated during officer use of pepper spray plaintiff's lack of injury-in-fact and refusal to comply with officer's orders, though crime was not serious.
​
During traffic stop, plaintiff refused to follow officers to patrol car to sign the citation. Plaintiff was placed under arrest but refused to comply and step out of the car. Plaintiff attempted to roll up power window to prevent officer from reaching in. Officer pepper sprayed plaintiff.
Though the plaintiff's crimes were not serious and neither officer could have felt their safety was threatened by plaintiff, plaintiff was nevertheless not compliant with the instructions of officer's after he was told he was under arrest. Therefore, the officers could reasonably have believed plaintiff was resisting arrest. Given these circumstances, the use of pepper spray was objectively reasonable in order to make the arrest.
Reference to I. C. A. § 804.8.
Sheldon v. Lansing, 2018 WL 10124649 (S.D. Iowa 2018)
Whether punches and other physical attacks by officer's to an armed plaintiff constituted reasonable force under Iowa Code Section 804.8.
​
Officers were attempting to arrest plaintiff pursuant to a warrant for a violent offense, saw a gun and ammunition in plaintiff's car. Plaintiff resisted arrest by refusing Officer's commands to get out of the car and by driving away from the scene. After wrecking his car and approaching officers on foot, plaintiff did not comply with multiple instructions to stop and get on the ground. Officer's tackled and struck plaintiff in attempt to arrest him.
Actions taken by officer's were not objectively unreasonable and therefore are entitled to the benefit of the defense in the Iowa use of force provision of 804.8. A reasonable officer would have believed defendant officers use of a punch to the face, a knee to the head, and pulling plaintiff's hair was a reasonable use of force in light of plaintiff's refusal to submit to arrest and the flight risk he posed, and was thus not a constitutional violation.
Case Law
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
Explicitly in alliance with and refers to "8 Can't Wait" campaign.
Relevant Excerpt
N/A
Policies require de-escalation techniques, alternatives to use of force, warn-before-shooting, and prohibition of shoot at or from moving vehicles, to name a few.
N/A
Use of force policy emphasizes de-escalation through talking, gaining cooperation, calm and measured communication, and using appropriate tone to defuse conflict. Use of force when safety not threatened prohibited, as well as when failure to comply is due to a medical condition, disability, or other factor beyond individual control.
N/A
Report gives recommendations for uniform, statewide TASER use policies, including appropriate placement on use of force continuums, clear guidelines regarding proper parts of the body to target, clear definitions of when and on whom TASER use is appropriate, what circumstances preclude TASER use, and requirements for medical attention and incident documentation following TASER use.
N/A