in the iowa district court for polk … · 1 in the iowa district court for polk county montray...

1

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

MONTRAY LITTLE and JARED CLINTON,

Plaintiffs, vs. KYLE THIES, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; NATALIE HEINEMANN, individually and in her official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; DANA WINGERT, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA,

Defendant.

Case No. ______________________

PETITION AT LAW and JURY DEMAND

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Montray Little and Jared Clinton, by and through the

undersigned counsel, and for their causes of action, respectfully state the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Montray Little is an African-American United States citizen and was

a resident of Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa at all times relevant to the events complained

of herein.

2. Plaintiff Jared Clinton is an African-American United States citizen and was

a resident of Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa at all times relevant to the events complained

of herein.

2

3. Defendant Kyle Thies is believed to be a citizen and resident of Iowa and

was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department

at all times relevant to the events complained of herein.

4. Defendant Natalie Heinemann is believed to be a citizen and resident of

Iowa and was employed as a law enforcement officer with the Des Moines, Iowa Police

Department at all times relevant to the events complained of herein.

5. Defendant Dana Wingert is believed to be a citizen and resident of Iowa

and at all times relevant to the events complained of herein, was employed as the Chief

of Police of the City of Des Moines Police Department.

6. Defendant City of Des Moines, Iowa is a municipal corporation organized

and authorized to operate under the laws of Iowa and is located at 400 East First Street,

Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa. Defendant City is responsible for maintaining and

operating the Des Moines Police Department.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Venue is proper in the District Court for Polk County pursuant to Iowa Code

§669.4(1) as the district in which Plaintiff resides and/or in which the acts and omissions

complained of occurred.

8. Subject matter jurisdiction of the District Court for Polk County is proper

pursuant to Iowa Code § 602.6101.

9. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. All events complained of herein occurred in Polk County, Iowa.

11. On July 15, 2018, Defendants Thies and Heinemann were on patrol for the

Des Moines Police Department in Des Moines, Iowa.

3

12. That day, Defendant Thies was driving a Des Moines Police patrol vehicle

and Defendant Heinemann was riding with him in the passenger seat.

13. Also on July 15, 2018, Mr. Little was driving a rental four-door sedan on or

about East Washington Avenue, Des Moines.

14. At approximately 9:05pm on July 15, 2018, Defendants Thies and

Heinemann activated the overhead lights on their patrol vehicle, signaling to Mr. Little that

they were initiating a traffic stop.

15. At all times material hereto, Mr. Little’s vehicle had no equipment violations

and he had violated no traffic laws.

16. The traffic stop by Defendants Thies and Heinemann was pretextual and

unlawful.

17. Mr. Little stopped his vehicle in response to Defendants Thies’s and

Heinemann’s show of authority.

18. Defendant Thies approached Mr. Little at his driver’s-side window and

spoke to Mr. Little through his open window.

19. At the same time, Defendant Heinemann approached Mr. Clinton at the

passenger’s-side window and kept a flashlight trained on him while Defendant Thies

spoke with Mr. Little.

20. Mr. Clinton remained quietly seated in the vehicle with his hands visible on

his lap and his seatbelt on.

21. Defendant Thies did not identify any reason for the traffic stop.

22. Defendant Thies proceeded to question Mr. Little about his activities and

asked him multiple times if he owned the vehicle.

4

23. Defendant Thies seized Mr. Little’s car keys at the outset of the stop.

24. Defendant Thies repeatedly asked Mr. Little if he had any weapons on his

person or in the car.

25. Mr. Little repeatedly informed Defendant Thies that he had no weapons and

that there were no weapons in the vehicle.

26. Defendant Thies alleged the vehicle smelled like marijuana and he could

see marijuana shake on the floor of the vehicle.

27. The vehicle did not smell like marijuana.

28. Mr. Little informed Defendant Thies that there was no marijuana in the

vehicle and no marijuana shake in the floor of the vehicle.

29. Defendant Thies stated Mr. Clinton gave him the impression he had a gun

by the way he was holding himself.

30. Defendant Thies then asked Mr. Little for identification, which Mr. Little

provided.

31. After reviewing Mr. Little’s identification, Defendant Thies directed Mr. Little

to exit the vehicle.

32. Mr. Little asked Defendant Thies why he was being asked to exit the vehicle.

33. Defendant Thies provided no legal justification, responding instead

“because I just told you.”

34. Mr. Little complied with Defendant Thies’s command and exited the vehicle.

35. Defendant Thies immediately turned Mr. Little towards the vehicle and

pulled his arms behind his back.

5

36. Defendant Thies held Mr. Little’s arms behind his back and frisked Mr. Little.

Defendant Thies pulled Mr. Little’s pants down below his underwear while doing so.

37. Defendant Thies then placed Mr. Little in handcuffs but told him he was not

under arrest.

38. Mr. Little complied with being placed in handcuffs.

39. Defendant Thies falsely accused Mr. Little of pulling away from him and

resisting being handcuffed.

40. Defendant Thies walked Mr. Little back to the patrol vehicle and seated him

in the backseat.

41. Defendant Thies threatened to take Mr. Little to jail when Mr. Little

questioned why he was being placed in the patrol vehicle in handcuffs.

42. Meanwhile, Defendant Heinemann remained outside the passenger-side

door of Mr. Little’s vehicle with her flashlight trained on Mr. Clinton.

43. Defendant Heinemann asked Mr. Clinton for identification, which he

provided.

44. After Defendant Thies handcuffed Mr. Little and placed him in the vehicle,

Defendant Heinemann directed Mr. Clinton to step out of the vehicle.

45. Defendant Heinemann directed Mr. Clinton to place his hands on his head

and then frisked Mr. Clinton.

46. After placing Mr. Little in the patrol vehicle in handcuffs, Defendant Thies

thoroughly searched the front passenger side, the glovebox, the center console, the

backseat, the front driver’s side, and the trunk of Mr. Little’s vehicle without legal

justification.

6

47. There were no weapons in the vehicle or in the possession of Mr. Little or

Mr. Clinton.

48. Defendants Thies and Heinemann did not collect any marijuana or

marijuana shake from Mr. Little’s vehicle.

49. There was no marijuana or marijuana shake in the vehicle.

50. While Defendant Thies searched Mr. Little’s vehicle, Defendant Heinemann

detained Mr. Clinton near the front of the patrol vehicle.

51. Defendant Heinemann interrogated Mr. Clinton and attempted to get him to

admit that he and Mr. Little had been smoking marijuana.

52. Mr. Clinton denied smoking marijuana.

53. Defendant Heinemann then lectured Mr. Clinton that he should go back to

college and told him to Google “scholarships for African-Americans with a single mom.”

Defendant Heinemann had no knowledge of Mr. Clinton’s parents or their relationship.

54. Only after searching Mr. Little’s vehicle did Officer Thies lookup Mr. Little’s

license information in the computer system in the patrol vehicle.

55. After confirming there was no marijuana in the vehicle, Defendant Thies

proceeded to interrogate Mr. Little while he was in handcuffs in the backseat of the patrol

vehicle.

56. Defendant Thies repeatedly asked Mr. Little to admit to smoking marijuana

or at least being around people who were smoking marijuana.

57. Defendant Thies threatened to file unspecified charges against Mr. Little if

Mr. Little did not admit to having marijuana shake in his vehicle.

7

58. When Mr. Little maintained he had not smoked marijuana or been around

anyone smoking marijuana and that he did not have marijuana in the vehicle, Defendant

Thies released him from the patrol vehicle and removed the handcuffs.

59. At no point during the traffic stop did Defendant Thies cite any legal

justification for the detention of Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton.

60. Throughout the interaction with Defendants Thies and Heinemann, Mr. Little

and Mr. Clinton were polite, responsive, calm, and non-threatening.

61. Neither Mr. Little nor Mr. Clinton had blood-shot eyes or impaired speech.

62. Neither Defendant Thies nor Defendant Heinemann ever accused Mr. Little

or Mr. Clinton of being impaired from alcohol or marijuana.

63. No citation was issued to Mr. Little or Mr. Clinton and they were released

from police detention.

64. On information and belief, Defendants Thies and Heinemann did not

complete any report regarding their detention and search of Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton.

65. On information and belief, Defendants Thies and Heinemann did not report

the traffic stop to dispatch.

66. On information and belief, Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines,

Iowa possess information establishing that Defendants Thies and Heinemann have a

history of unconstitutionally and disproportionately detaining African-American individuals

and charging them with criminal offenses.

67. In 2017, 50% of the bookings completed by Defendant Thies were against

African-American individuals, though African-Americans represent only 11% of the Des

Moines population.

8

68. In 2016, 47% of the bookings completed by Defendant Thies were against

African-American individuals.

69. In the first six months of 2018, 42% of the people booked into the Polk

County Jail by Defendant Thies have been African-American.

70. In 2017, 27% of the bookings completed by Defendant Heinemann were

against African-American individuals, though African-Americans represent only 11% of

the Des Moines population.

71. In 2016, 29% of the bookings completed by Defendant Heinemann were

against African-American individuals.

72. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wingert and City of Des Moines,

Iowa have received multiple complaints from African-American individuals regarding

Defendant Thies’ actions while on patrol.


Iowa have received a complaint that Defendant Thies falsely accused an African-

American man with having a weapon.


Iowa have received complaints that Defendant Thies falsely accused citizens of resisting

being placed in handcuffs when they in fact were compliant with being placed in

handcuffs.


Iowa have received a complaint that Defendant Thies wrongly seized $5,800 from an

African-American, alleging that the money was from drug proceeds despite finding no

drugs or evidence of drug distribution. The money was later returned to the citizen.

9


Iowa took no action against Defendant Thies based upon these complaints.

77. Upon information and belief, 32% of the individuals booked into the Polk

County Jail by Des Moines police officers in 2017 were African-American, though African-

Americans represent only 11% of the Des Moines population.

78. Upon information and belief, the percentage of African-American individuals

booked into the Polk County Jail by Des Moines police was 30% in 2014; 30% in 2015;

and 31% in 2016, though African-Americans represented approximately 11% of the Des

Moines population.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1

PRETEXTUAL STOP CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, § 8 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION

RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES & SEIZURES (Against Defendants Thies and Heinemann, Individually)

79. Plaintiffs replead paragraphs 1 through 78 as if fully set forth herein.

80. This Count is alleged against Defendants in their individual capacities.

81. At all times material hereto, Defendants’ actions and omissions were made

under the color of authority and law as law enforcement officers for the Des Moines, Iowa

Police Department.

82. On July 15, 2018, Defendants violated Mr. Little’s and Mr. Clinton’s clearly

established state constitutional rights by effectuating a pretextual warrantless automobile

stop.

83. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and reckless

disregard of Mr. Little’s and Mr. Clinton’s civil and constitutional rights.

10

84. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, unlawful, and in gross disregard

of Mr. Little’s and Mr. Clinton’s civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.

85. Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton hereby request reasonable attorney fees and costs

associated with prosecuting this action as Defendants’ violation of their constitutional right

was oppressive, conniving, harsh, cruel, and/or tyrannical.

86. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ illegal and unjustified

conduct, Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton were injured and are entitled to recover for what they

have suffered in the past and will suffer in the future suffer, including:

a. Deprivation of their constitutional rights;

b. Humiliation, degradation, public ridicule, loss of personal reputation, and emotional distress;

c. Actual and Compensatory Damages;

d. Punitive damages;

e. All expenses associated with the prosecution of the instant action, including, but not limited to, court costs, anticipated discovery expenses, anticipated expert expenses, and the maximum legally allowable judgment interest; and

f. Any other expenses allowed by federal or state law, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for Judgment against the aforementioned

Defendants as follows:

a. Actual, Compensatory, Consequential, and all other allowable damages against Defendant in an amount yet to be determined;

b. Compensation for violation of their constitutional rights, mental anguish, and humiliation;

c. Plaintiffs’ cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;

d. Punitive damages; and

e. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

11

COUNT 2 MR. LITTLE SEACH & SEIZURE

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C § 1983 VIOLATION OF 4th AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION



88. Defendants Thies and Heinemann are persons for the purpose of a Section

1983 action for damages and this Count is brought against them in their individual

capacities.



Police Department.

90. On July 15, 2018, Defendants violated Mr. Little’s clearly established federal

constitutional rights by seizing Mr. Little; seizing Mr. Little’s car keys; searching Mr. Little;

and placing Mr. Little in handcuffs without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do

so.


disregard of Mr. Little’s civil and constitutional rights.


of Mr. Little’s civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.


conduct, Mr. Little was injured and is entitled to recover for what he has suffered in the

past and will suffer in the future suffer, including:

a. Deprivation of his constitutional rights;


12




f. Any other expenses allowed by federal or state law, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against the aforementioned



b. Compensation for violation of his constitutional rights, mental anguish, and humiliation;

c. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;



COUNT 3 MR. LITTLE SEARCH & SEIZURE

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, § 8 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES & SEIZURES

(Against Defendants Thies and Heinemann, Individually)





Police Department.

97. On July 15, 2018, Defendants violated Mr. Little’s clearly established federal

constitutional rights by seizing Mr. Little; seizing Mr. Little’s car keys; searching Mr. Little;

13

and placing Mr. Little in handcuffs without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do

so.






associated with prosecuting this action as Defendants’ violation of his constitutional right














14


c. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;



COUNT 4 MR. CLINTON SEARCH & SEIZURE






capacities.



Police Department.

105. On July 15, 2018, Defendants violated Mr. Clinton’s clearly established

federal constitutional rights by seizing Mr. Clinton and searching Mr. Clinton without

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so.


disregard of Mr. Clinton’s civil and constitutional rights.


of Mr. Clinton civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.

15


conduct, Mr. Clinton was injured and is entitled to recover for what he has suffered in the












c. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;



COUNT 5 MR. CLINTON SEARCH & SEIZURE





16



Police Department.

112. On July 15, 2018, Defendants violated Mr. Clinton’s clearly established

state constitutional rights by seizing Mr. Clinton and searching Mr. Clinton without

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so.


disregard of Mr. Clinton’s civil and constitutional rights.


of Mr. Clinton’s civil rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.

115. Mr. Clinton hereby requests reasonable attorney fees and costs associated

with prosecuting this action as Defendants’ violation of his constitutional rights was

oppressive, conniving, harsh, cruel, and/or tyrannical.


conduct, Mr. Clinton was injured and is entitled to recover for what he has suffered in the








17





c. Plaintiff’s cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;



COUNT 6 EXTENSION OF STOP

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C § 1983 VIOLATION OF 4TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION





capacities.



Police Department.


established federal constitutional rights by extending the vehicle stop beyond what was

reasonably necessary to resolve the basis for the stop.



18
















c. Plaintiffs’ cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;



19

COUNT 7 EXTENSION OF STOP







Police Department.


established state constitutional rights by extending the vehicle stop beyond what was

reasonably necessary to resolve the basis for the stop.













20












COUNT 8 VEHICLE SEARCH






capacities.



Police Department.

21


established federal constitutional rights by searching the vehicle without probable cause

or reasonable suspicion to do so.













f. Any other expenses allowed by federal or state law, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.





22




COUNT 9 VEHICLE SEARCH



139. Plaintiff repleads paragraphs 1 through 138 as if fully set forth herein.




Police Department.


established state constitutional rights by searching the vehicle without probable cause or

reasonable suspicion to do so.






associated with prosecuting this action as Defendants’ violation of his constitutional right


23

















COUNT 10 RACIALLY BIASED POLICING

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C § 1983 VIOLATION OF 14th AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


147. Plaintiff repleads paragraphs 1 through 146 as if fully set forth herein.

24



capacities.



Police Department.

150. The actions and omissions of Defendants were undertaken with the intent

to discriminate against Plaintiffs on account of their race and the color of their skin,

denying Plaintiffs their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

151. Defendants singled Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton out for harassment and treated

them differently from other similarly situated persons.

152. Defendants’ differential treatment of Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton was

intentional, willful, malicious, arbitrary, irrational, motivated by ill-will and racial bias, and

exhibited a conscious disregard or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.









25

f. Any other expenses allowed by federal or state law, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.








COUNT 11 RACIALLY BIASED POLICING

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, § 6 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION (Against Defendants Thies and Heinemann, Individually)





Police Department.

157. The actions and omissions of Defendants were undertaken with the intent

to discriminate against Plaintiffs on account of their race and the color of their skin,

denying Plaintiffs their Article I, § 6 right to equal protection under the law.

158. Defendants singled Plaintiffs out for harassment and treated them

differently from other similarly situated persons.

26

159. Defendants’ differential treatment of Plaintiffs was intentional, willful,

malicious, arbitrary, irrational, motivated by ill-will and racial bias, and exhibited a

conscious disregard or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.



















27


COUNT 12 CONSPIRACY

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C §§ 1983 and 1985 VIOLATION OF 4th, 5th & 14th AMENDMENTS TO

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (Against Defendants Thies and Heinemann, Individually)




capacities.



Police Department.

165. Defendants Thies and Heinemann reached an agreement among

themselves to deprive Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton of their constitutional rights.

166. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the coconspirators committed overt

acts and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity.

167. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,

willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.







28








c. Plaintiffs’ cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;



COUNT 13 CONSPIRACY

CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, §§ 6 & 8 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION (Against Defendants Thies and Heinemann, Individually)





Police Department.

172. Defendants Thies and Heinemann reached an agreement among

themselves to deprive Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton of their constitutional rights.

29

173. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the coconspirators committed overt

acts and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity.

174. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice,

willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others.


















30



COUNT 14 DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT POLICIES, PRACTICES, CUSTOMS, TRAINING

AND SUPERVISION CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C § 1983

VIOLATION OF 4th, 5th & 14th AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Against Defendants Wingert, Individually, and City of Des Moines, Iowa)


178. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are persons for the

purposes of a Section 1983 action for damages.

179. At all times material hereto, Defendant Wingert’s actions and/or omissions

were made under the color of authority as the Chief of Police and this Count is made

against him in his individual capacity.

180. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are responsible for

establishing, maintaining, and enforcing the official policies, procedures, patterns,

practices, and/or customs of the Des Moines Police Department for traffic stops, detention

of citizens, handcuffing, interrogations, vehicle searches, citizen searches,

documentation of citizen/police interactions, and racially-neutral enforcement.

181. Defendant City of Des Moines, Iowa is charged with the duty to ensure that

its law enforcement officers are properly trained and supervised.

182. As Chief of Police, Defendant Wingert is ultimately responsible for the

training and supervision of his deputies.

183. Defendants violated Mr. Little’s and Mr. Clinton’s federal constitutional

rights by:

31

a. permitting City of Des Moines police officers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens;

b. ratifying and approving the unlawful stopping, seizure, detaining and searching of citizens;

c. failing to enforce policies and implement policies preventing the unlawful stopping, seizure, detaining and searching of citizens;

d. failing to properly review citizen complaints against City of Des Moines police officers;

e. tolerating, encouraging, and permitting collusive statements by involved officers in such situations;

f. failing to adopt and enforce policies to document citizen interactions that do not result in arrest or citation;

g. failing to monitor and address racially-disproportionate actions taken by City of Des Moines police officers;

h. failing to adopt a system to identify, track, and monitor problematic police behavior and patterns of unconstitutional conduct;

i. failing to take adequate disciplinary measures against City of Des Moines police officers who violate the civil rights of citizens;

j. failing to train and/or supervise properly Defendants Thies and Heinemann in the constitutional requirements for the stopping, seizing, detaining, and searching of citizens;

k. failing to conduct sufficient training or supervision with respect to the rights of citizens to be free from race-based policing; and

l. failing to implement adequate maintenance training and properly focused maintenance training.

63. Defendants policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices caused the

violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other

claims and resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action

from among various available alternatives.

32

184. The need for the aforementioned training and supervision was obvious and

it was foreseeable that the inadequacy of Defendants’ training and supervision was likely

to result in the violation of constitutional rights.

185. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and/or reckless

disregard of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and those similarly situated to them.

186. Defendants failure to train and supervise Defendants Thies and Heinemann

caused the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and

in the other claims and resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course

of action from among various available alternatives













33


c. Plaintiffs’ cost in this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;

d. Injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from committing further constitutional violations;

e. Punitive damages; and

f. Any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT 15 DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT POLICIES, PRACTICES, CUSTOMS, TRAINING

AND SUPERVISION CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION PURSUANT TO

ARTICLE I, §§ 6 & 8 OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION (Against Defendants Wingert, Individually, and City of Des Moines, Iowa)


189. At all times material hereto, Defendant Wingert’s actions and/or omissions

were made under the color of authority as the Chief of Police and this Count is made

against him in his individual capacity.

190. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa are responsible for

establishing, maintaining, and enforcing the official policies, procedures, patterns,

practices, and/or customs of the Des Moines Police Department for traffic stops, detention

of citizens, handcuffing, interrogations, vehicle searches, citizen searches,

documentation of citizen/police interactions, and racially-neutral enforcement.

191. Defendant City of Des Moines, Iowa is charged with the duty to ensure that

its law enforcement officers are properly trained and supervised.

192. As Chief of Police, Defendant Wingert is ultimately responsible for the

training and supervision of his deputies.

34

193. Defendants violated Mr. Little’s and Mr. Clinton’s federal constitutional

rights by:

a. permitting City of Des Moines police officers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens;

b. ratifying and approving the unlawful stopping, seizure, detaining and searching of citizens;

c. failing to enforce policies and implement policies preventing the unlawful stopping, seizure, detaining and searching of citizens;

d. failing to properly review citizen complaints against City of Des Moines police officers;

e. tolerating, encouraging, and permitting collusive statements by involved officers in such situations;

f. failing to adopt and enforce policies to document citizen interactions that do not result in arrest or citation;

g. failing to monitor and address racially-disproportionate actions taken by City of Des Moines police officers;

h. failing to adopt a system to identify, track, and monitor problematic police behavior and patterns of unconstitutional conduct;

i. failing to take adequate disciplinary measures against City of Des Moines police officers who violate the civil rights of citizens;

j. failing to train and/or supervise properly Defendants Thies and Heinemann in the constitutional requirements for the stopping, seizing, detaining, and searching of citizens;

k. failing to conduct sufficient training or supervision with respect to the rights of citizens to be free from race-based policing; and

l. failing to implement adequate maintenance training and properly focused maintenance training.

63. Defendants policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices caused the

violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other

claims and resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action

from among various available alternatives.

35

194. The need for the aforementioned training and supervision was obvious and

it was foreseeable that the inadequacy of Defendants’ training and supervision was likely

to result in the violation of constitutional rights.

195. Defendants demonstrated a deliberate indifference to and/or reckless

disregard of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and those similarly situated to them.

196. Defendants failure to train and supervise Defendants Thies and Heinemann

caused the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and

in the other claims and resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course

of action from among various available alternatives.













36








COUNT 16 NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING

(Against Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa)

199. Plaintiff replead paragraphs 1 through 198 as if fully set forth herein.

200. Defendants Wingert and City of Des Moines, Iowa were the employers

responsible for training and/or supervising officers of Defendants Thies and Heinemann.

146. As the employers, Defendants have a duty to exercise reasonable care in

the hiring, retention and supervision of individuals who, because of their employment,

may pose a threat of injury to members of the public.

147. Defendants breached their duty in the negligent and reckless supervision

and training of Defendants Thies and Heinemann as it relates to the misconduct alleged

supra.

148. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of

the incompetence, unfitness, and dangerous characteristics of Defendants Thies and

Heinemann.

149. The incompetence and unfitness of Defendants Thies and Heinemann was

a cause of damage to Plaintiffs.

37

150. These Defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the

aforementioned Defendants in an amount which will fully and fairly compensate them for

their mental and emotional injuries and damages, compensatory damages, for interest

and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as may be just under the

circumstances.

COUNT 17 ASSAULT AND BATTERY

(Against Defendants Thies and Heinemann)

201. Plaintiffs replead paragraphs 1 through 200 as if fully set forth herein

202. Defendants Thies and Heinemann subjected Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton to

contact of an insulting and provoking nature.

203. The actions of Defendants Thies and Heinemann were undertaken without

the consent of Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton.

204. The intentional acts of Defendants Thies and Heinemann resulted in bodily

contact with Mr. Little and Mr. Clinton that a reasonable person would deem insulting or

offensive.

205. As a proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Mr. Little and Mr.

Clinton have in the past and will in the future suffer injuries and damages.

206. The actions of Defendants Thies and Heinemann were willful, wanton,

unlawful, and in gross disregard of Mr. Little’s and Mr. Clinton’s civil rights, justifying an

award of punitive damages.

207. Plaintiffs hereby request reasonable attorney fees and costs associated

with prosecuting this action as Defendants’ behavior was oppressive, conniving, harsh,

cruel, and/or tyrannical.

38

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the

aforementioned Defendants in an amount which will fully and fairly compensate them for

their injuries and damages, including but not limited to compensatory and punitive, for

attorney fees, for interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as may be

just under the circumstances.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury in this matter on all counts to which Plaintiffs

are entitled to a jury.

PARRISH KRUIDENIER DUNN BOLES GRIBBLE GENTRY BROWN & BERGMANN, L.L.P.

By: __/s/ Gina Messamer__________

Gina Messamer AT0011823 2910 Grand Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50312 Telephone: (515) 284-5737 Facsimile: (515) 284-1704 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Original Filed.

mailto:[email protected]

in the iowa district court for polk … · 1 in the iowa district court for polk county montray...

Documents