McCabe v. Macaulay

551 F.Supp.2d 771

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

No. 05-CV-73-LRR.

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

October 1, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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

Jeffrey C. Peterzalek, AAG, Des Moines, IA, Linn County, Todd Davis Tripp, Cedar IA, Zachary Carl Richter, USDOJ, Defendants.

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  INTRODUCTION.........................................................775
  II.  RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS...........................................775
      A.  Fourth Amended Complaint.........................................775
      B.  Motion...........................................................776
III.  LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT..................................776
 IV.  FACTUAL FINDINGS.....................................................777
      A.  The Players......................................................777
      B.  Noelridge Park...................................................777
      C.  The Raly............................................. ..........777
          1.  Background...................................................777
              a.  Physical barriers........................................778
              b.  Restrictions on entry....................................778
              c.  Restrictions on pedestrian traffic.......................778
              d.  Stationing of law enforcement officers..................779
          2.  Invitations to protest.......................................779
          3.  Plaintiffs' arrests..........................................780
              a.  Plaintiffs walk to the Bus Entrance......................780
              b.  Troopers Bailey and Busch confront Plaintiffs...........780
          4.  Detention at the poolhouse...................................781
          5.  Cavity inspections...........................................782
          6.  All charges dropped..........................................782

V.  THE ARGUMENTS........................................................782
  VI.  THE IOWA STATE PATROL................................................783
VII.  STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS..........................................784
      A.  Iowa Analogue to Bivens..........................................784
      B.  Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies.......................785
VIII.  GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY...........................786
  IX.  FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS..............................................787
       A.  Were Plaintiffs' First Amendment Rights Violated?...............787
           1.  Overview of First Amendment law.............................787
           2.  Analysis...................................................788
       B.  Were Plaintiffs' First Amendment Rights Clearly Established?...792
       C.  Conclusion......................................................792
X.  FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS................................................792
    A.  Were Plaintiffs'Fourth Amendment Rights Violated?.................793
    1.  Overview of Fourth Amendment law...................................793
    2.  Analysis..........................................................793
        a.  Search-related rights ........................................793
        b.  Seizure-related rights.........................................793
               i.  Iowa Code § 321.229...............................794
              ii.  Iowa Code § 719.1(1)...............................794
             iii.  Iowa Code § 716.8..................................795
              iv.  Iowa Code § 723.4..................................795
    B.  Were Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment Rights Clearly Established?......795
    C.  Conclusion.........................................................796
 XI.  FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) "SUPPORT OR
ADVOCACY" CLAIMS..................................................796
XII.  REMAINING CLAIMS.....................................................797
XIII.  DISPOSITION.........................................................797

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 136) ("Motion"), filed by Defendants Troy Bailey ("Trooper Bailey"), Rick Busch ("Trooper Busch") and The Iowa State Patrol (collectively "State Defendants").

II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

A. Fourth Amended Complaint

On September 5, 2006, Plaintiffs Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson filed a sixcount Fourth Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand ("Fourth Amended Complaint"). In the first five counts of the Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the State Defendants infringed upon Plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional (1) rights to freedom of speech, (2) rights to freedom of assembly, (3) rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, (4) rights to equal protection (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 Fourth Amended Complaint Plaintiffs claim that the State Defendants conspired to violate such rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Trooper Busch and Trooper Bailey are sued in their individual capacities, not their official capacities.¹

B. Motion

On March 30, 2007, the State Defendants filed the Motion. On April 23, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance. The 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 dad 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 Am., 450 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir.2006) (citing Drake ex rel. Cotton v. Koss, 445 F.3d 1038, 1042 (8th Cir.2006)); see also Scott v. Harris, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1775, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (restating same principles and remarking that "[i]n qualified immunity cases, this usually means adopting ... the plaintiffs version of the facts"). However, "[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Scott, 127 S.Ct. at 1776.

Procedurally, the moving party bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show a lack of a genuine issue." Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir.1992) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). Once the moving party has successfully carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the nonmoving party has an affirmative burden to go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see, e.g., Baum v. Helget Gas Prods., Inc., 440 F.3d 1019, 1022 (8th Cir.2006) ("Summary judgment is not appropriate if the non-moving party can set forth specific facts, by affidavit, deposition, or other evidence, showing a genuine issue for trial.") The nonmoving party must offer proof "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. `"Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.'" Reasonover v. St. Louis County, Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 578 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir.2003)).

IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS

When viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and affording them all reasonable inferences, the material facts are these:²

A. The Players

Plaintiffs are two Iowa residents who disagree with the policies of President George W. Bush and oppose the Iraq War. Troy Bailey and Rick Busch are Troopers with the Iowa State Patrol. The Iowa State Patrol is a division of the Iowa Department of Public Safety, the State of Iowa's chief law enforcement agency. The Iowa State Patrol has employed Trooper Bailey since 1995 and Trooper Busch since 1992.

B. Noelridge Park

Noelridge Park ("Park") is a public park in the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa ("City"). The Park is bounded on its south side by 42nd Street NE and on its west side by Council Street NE.

In the southwest corner of the Park, there is a large parking lot. Two driveways provide access to the parking lot from 42nd Street NE. A pool house, an aquatics center and tennis courts are located east of the parking lot.

Directly north of the parking lot is a large open space. This open space is bounded on its north side by a small access road, on its south side by the parking lot, on its west side by Council Street NE and on its east side by the aquatics center and pool house, some trees and...