I’m sorry to have to report that a Henry County Judge has dismissed the charges brought by David Howard against IDOT Officer Darrell Wiegand, Jr.
It is difficult to understand the judge’s reasoning, which seems to indicate that as citizens of this mighty state we have NO RECOURSE whatsoever should an employee of the state happen to use deadly force against any one of us in the line of duty.
How can this be? Surely in other states cases of alleged police brutality are brought to trial. Surely there must be a means to do so in Iowa, and I believe there was a case in Des Moines in the last few years where plaintiffs successfully brought suit against two(?) police officers. However, if —as according to Judge Schilling– no citizen may make claims for damages against a state employee when on the job, then Iowa’s motto has been defiled and our state flag ripped to shreds and tatters. A true mockery of what our state is supposed to stand for.
Why does the law in Iowa protect the alleged perpetrator when s/he is a state employee and discriminate wholeheartedly against the plaintiff to the degree that the plaintiff’s side of the story is not even allowed to be heard by his peers?
Why is it that our law allows a state employee complete immunity to do whatever he pleases to whomever he chooses and a judge looks the other way?
I know there is far more to the story of David Howard’s case than any of us knows at the moment and I myself know far more about it than I am at liberty to put into print. But I can guarantee that when the details are revealed, we will all be privy to a web of lies and corruption that stinks all the way to our nation’s capital (which is now the workplace of at least one person initially apprised of the details of this assault against Mr. Howard.)
The Burlington Hawk Eye article on this latest development appeared January 14, 2010. See below:
http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/DOT-assault-lawsuit-011410
S.D. trucker’s IDOT suit dismissed
Judge says officer cannot be held personally liable.
By JOHN MANGALONZO
jmangalonzo@thehawkeye.com
MOUNT PLEASANT — David Howard sounded distraught Wednesday when he learned over the phone that his Henry County District Court lawsuit was dismissed.
The 71-year-old Sioux Falls, S.D., man filed the lawsuit last year against an Iowa Department of Transportation vehicle enforcement officer. Howard maintains he was pistol-whipped by DOT officer Darrell Wiegand Jr. of Burlington during a traffic stop nearly five years ago.
Wiegand is the same officer a Fort Madison couple alleged harassed and menaced them during a traffic stop earlier last year.
“I guess they are going to get away with one,” Howard said. “I kind of expected the state to do it.”
The suit named the officer as the primary defendant on negligence and assault and battery, stating Wiegand “did physically strike the plaintiff in the head and back.” DOT also was named for alleged negligence.
Howard and his wife sought for judgment in the amount that is fair “plus interest.”
“This court finds that it can decide the motion to dismiss on purely legal grounds,” District Court Judge Michael Schilling said in his ruling. “This is one of the exceptional cases where a motion to dismiss should be granted.”
Assistant Attorney General Robin Glenn Formaker long has contended some of Howard’s claims are barred “by the immunity for claims arising out of alleged assault and battery.”
Chapter 669 of the Iowa Tort Claims Act gives citizens a road map of sorts by which they can sue the state. Attorneys for the state argued Howard cannot sue Wiegand and IDOT “because employees of governmental agencies acting within the scope of their employment and the individual state agencies are immune from suit” under that section.
Under the Tort Act, a suit cannot be filed against the state if it is based on “any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.”
“Thus, defendants’ assert that plaintiff’s suit for an alleged assault by an employee of a state agency must fail,” Schilling wrote.
Howard said he was lost during a delivery in Mount Pleasant nearly five years ago and was going to ask Wiegand for directions.
He claimed Wiegand became agitated, jumped from his patrol car and told Howard he was under arrest for being on a street where semitrailers were not allowed.
Howard alleges Wiegand pulled out his service handgun and repeatedly hit him. He said someone, a trucker’s wife, caught the scene on a video camera.
Howard was taken to jail and released the next day.
Wiegand, according to DOT documents, insisted Howard was uncooperative. There was no mention of a struggle in the officer’s report.
Schilling, in the ruling, said after a “plain, simple and unambiguous reading” of the Tort Claim Act section that applied to the case, the assault and battery claim “must be dismissed.”
The judge added: “Darrell D. Wiegand Jr., as an employee of the state, cannot be held personally liable for any claim which is exempted,” under that Tort Claim Act section.
Earlier last year, Jane and Carl Schneider of Fort Madison accused Wiegand of conducting an illegal traffic stop on their vehicle after the officer mistook them for carnival workers and allegedly treated them like common criminals.
When they heard of Howard’s lawsuit, the Schneiders established a legal fund for the South Dakota man and netted more than $11,000.
For now, Howard is considering whether to appeal.
“The big thing right now is an attorney who will stick with it, who has guts,” he said. “It isn’t right, what (Wiegand) got away by with.”
Posted by friendsofdavidhoward 
