Myron Dennis Behm, Burton J. Brooks, Bobby Lee Langston, David Leon Brodsky, Jeffrey R. Olson and Geoff Tate Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Gatso USA, Inc.
16-1031
| Iowa Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Cedar Rapids adopted an Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) ordinance authorizing cameras (contracted to Gatso) to photograph vehicles exceeding posted speed by 11+ mph; Gatso screens images and forwards suspected violations to Cedar Rapids Police Department (CRPD), whose officers make final citation determinations.
- Notices of Violation are mailed to registered owners (identified via Nlets); recipients may either request an administrative hearing before a city appeals board or request that a municipal infraction be filed in Small Claims (district court). Administrative appeals may be further appealed to court.
- Six vehicle owners challenged the ATE system and ordinance on multiple grounds (procedural and substantive due process, equal protection/privileges and immunities, preemption, unlawful delegation of police power, unjust enrichment, and a private constitutional damages claim); the district court granted summary judgment for City and Gatso.
- Plaintiffs pursued administrative hearings and did not appeal adverse administrative decisions to district court; some paid fines; one plaintiff was found not liable.
- On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reviewed preserved issues de novo for constitutional claims and affirmed the district court, rejecting plaintiffs’ preserved claims and finding many unpreserved or not ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process — forum required | Plaintiffs: ordinance forces contest through administrative hearing and thus denies statutory right to trial in district court for municipal infractions | City: ordinance provides two alternative, optional forums; owners can bypass administrative hearing and go directly to court | Held: No violation; administrative hearing is optional and plaintiffs chose administrative route and did not pursue court appeal |
| Irrebuttable presumption/ownership liability | Plaintiffs: ordinance creates irrebuttable presumption of owner liability, violating due process | City: process allows contest and court review; issue not preserved for appeal | Held: Not preserved; court declined to rule on unpreserved issue |
| Preemption by state law (364.22, 602.6101) | Plaintiffs: ATE ordinance conflicts with state statutes making municipal infractions a judicial matter and conflicts with IDOT evaluation/order and other statutes | City: ordinance adds an optional administrative forum without depriving courts; state law and case law allow concurrent procedures; IDOT appeal pending so not ripe | Held: No preemption; ordinance not irreconcilable with state law; IDOT-related claim not ripe or not preserved |
| Unlawful delegation of police power to private contractor | Plaintiffs: Gatso exercises discretion in enforcement, an unconstitutional delegation | City/Gatso: Gatso performs ministerial functions; CRPD officers make enforcement decisions; contractor role is non-discretionary | Held: No unlawful delegation; final enforcement discretion remains with CRPD |
Key Cases Cited
- Mueller v. Wellmark, 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- City of Sioux City v. Jacobsma, 862 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2015) (constitutional claims reviewed de novo)
- Bowers v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 638 N.W.2d 682 (Iowa 2002) (procedural due process notice and hearing standards)
- Seymour v. City of Ankeny, 755 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa 2008) (preemption and home-rule conflict analysis)
- Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding ATE ordinance; no improper delegation; concurrent jurisdiction reasoning)
- Brooks v. City of Des Moines, 844 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 2016) (rejection of preemption challenge to ATE ordinance)