Jury Clears City of Cedar Rapids Officer in False Arrest Lawsuit

On April 24, 2016, at around 3:00 p.m., Bates and his friend, L.I., were walking from Hill-Bro Store to an apartment where Bates’ girlfriend lived. They noticed a police car driving slowly past them before continuing on its way. About a block from the apartment, Bates saw two police cars approaching from opposite directions. As they neared, officers, including, Defendant Tyler Richardson, Heidi Northland, and several unknown officers, exited their cars and pointed guns at Bates and L.I., ordering them to the ground.

After complying, Bates and L.I. were handcuffed and searched by the officers. Richardson and Northland began questioning Bates about criminal activity unrelated to him, without informing him of his right to remain silent or to refuse to answer. This custodial interrogation occurred without prior warning of his constitutional rights.

The public detention, search, and interrogation, conducted without probable cause, subjected Bates to unnecessary humiliation and physical restraint. After about 30 minutes, a supervising officer arrived and instructed the officers to release Bates and L.I. The handcuffs were removed, and Bates was told he was free to go.

As Bates approached the apartment building, he noticed Richardson and Northland conversing nearby. As he entered the building, Northland ordered him to stop and arrested him for Interference with Official Acts, alleging Bates had failed to comply with a prior order. Bates was taken to jail, booked, and detained overnight.

The following morning, just before his initial appearance, law enforcement informed Bates that the charges had been dropped, and he was free to go. After his release, Bates filed a complaint with the Cedar Rapids Police Department. The department found his claims of wrongful arrest and detention “unfounded” but upheld the allegation of inappropriate conduct by the officers. The police never provided Bates with any incident reports.

As a direct result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages that exceeded the court’s jurisdictional limits. These damages included past and future physical pain, emotional distress, and the future loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff also sought punitive damages against the Defendants personally. In addition, Plaintiff requested compensation for attorney’s fees and costs related to the case. Furthermore, Plaintiff sought reimbursement for all allowable costs, expenses, and fees incurred during the legal process.

Defendants denied the claims and argued that Plaintiff did not have a valid case. They argued that Plaintiff’s harm resulted from his own actions, not theirs, and invoked immunity laws for protection. The defense also argued that punitive damages were not appropriate, as there was no evidence of misconduct.

They maintained they acted in self-defense or to protect others, and their actions were reasonable and in good faith. Defendants stated they had valid reasons for their actions and that Plaintiff may not have tried to reduce the harm.

Defendants argued they deserved credit for any compensation Plaintiff received from other sources. Finally, Defendants reserved the right to amend their response as more information became available.