Wednesday, January 20, 2010

It's final, we are immune, get over it

I posted about this in September: Iowa Attorney General, we are immune, get over it where a trucker from South Dakota is beat up by DOT officer Darrell Wiegand Jr. No one seems to be denying that the trucker received a beat-down from the officer.

The ruling from District Court Judge Michael Schilling
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."
That would be this section:
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."
Because of this ruling, it is now within the "scope of their employment" for state employees to beat the crap out of citizens.

So everyone, please be careful in our state. It seems that some people have immunity and they can get away with battery.

Read more at S.D. trucker's IDOT suit dismissed


s said...

they don't have immunity from physics. Were it me, I assure you I would apply some high velocity physics to his happy ass. He would be wishing for just a split second that he could have been sued. Judge too. For just a split second.

Crotalus said...

I kinda was thinking the same thing: how immune are they to the laws of ballistics?

strandediniowa said...

Official disclaimer: I understand the sentiment, but this establishment will not condone threats of violence.

I do think that the victim would have been within his rights to defend himself with all means necessary, up to and including violence, to dissuade and prevent violence upon himself. At the time of the action. After the fact, not so much.

We still have a ballot box and we are bringing this issue to our elected officials.

We ain't there yet, gentlemen.

His lawyer can now file in Fed court as a civil rights violation with a chance to strike the law down. He now has standing because he was denied his rights because of this code.

This ruling (although heinous) isn't all bad. This judge couldn't rule against the law, but a fed court can.

straightarrow said...

I sincerely hope you are right and that the law is overturned. And yes a judge can rule against such a law.

straightarrow said...

Also, let's hope there are some criminal charges of denying civil rights brought against the thug.

Anonymous said...

Well now...this is bullshit! Thats about one can say, other then I 'll avoid Iowa! Tough officers down there, beating up elderly folks.

strandediniowa said...

We're going to try SA.

Madmedic, thanks for the link here. I'll be heading north next month if I still have my job.

When I was a kid, the IDOT were not armed and now they have firepower equal to the troopers.

Yep, real brave, beating up old people.

marion said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.