{"id":20721,"date":"2022-12-03T05:10:13","date_gmt":"2022-12-03T05:10:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/03\/des-moines-residents-will-shell-out-125000-to-man-whose-phone-was-illegally-seized-by-cops-he-was-recording\/"},"modified":"2022-12-03T05:10:13","modified_gmt":"2022-12-03T05:10:13","slug":"des-moines-residents-will-shell-out-125000-to-man-whose-phone-was-illegally-seized-by-cops-he-was-recording","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/03\/des-moines-residents-will-shell-out-125000-to-man-whose-phone-was-illegally-seized-by-cops-he-was-recording\/","title":{"rendered":"Des Moines Residents Will Shell Out $125,000 To Man Whose Phone Was Illegally Seized By Cops He Was Recording"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

\n

from the residents-paying-extra-for-bad-customer-service<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

Denying qualified immunity<\/a> to law enforcement officers who violate rights is a rarity. It doesn\u2019t mean the sued cops lose. It just means they can\u2019t dismiss the lawsuit. In theory, that means officers alleged to have violated rights will now make their case in front of a jury.<\/p>\n

But a cop facing a jury is even more rare than an immunity denial. When government employees are faced with being judged by a jury of their peers, their employers tend to start handing out settlements. What this does is force the people they\u2019re supposed to be serving to buy their way out of lawsuits where government misconduct might become part of the permanent record.<\/p>\n

That is what has happened here. In May 2018, Des Moines resident and radio producer Daniel Robbins was recording illegally parked cars near the police station. Some of these illegally parked cars were driven by police officers<\/a>. Detective Brad Youngblut, on his way towards his (possibly illegally parked) vehicle noticed Robbins and decided to start hassling him.<\/p>\n

This hassling continued for about 12 minutes. By the end of it, Robbins was surrounded by police officers and no longer had possession of his cell phone and camera. The excuse given for this seizure was\u2026 well, no real excuse was given until the Youngblut and the officers were sued. This is what was said at the time:<\/p>\n

\n

Detective Youngblut suggested that the officers \u201cjust make a suspicious activity case . . . [and] confiscate the camera\u00a0until we have a reason for what we\u2019re doing<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Just making some shit up, basically. Once sued, the detective claimed reported car vandalism in the area, as well as a murder of a couple of cops somewhere else in the country by a person filming them, was all the justification he needed to stop Robbins and seize his recording equipment. Also: loitering. <\/p>\n

What was left unexplained to any court\u2019s satisfaction was why Robbins\u2019 property was seized and why it took the Des Moines PD 12 days<\/em> to return it to him. The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court said Robbins\u2019 Fourth Amendment allegations were credible<\/a>, reversing the granting of immunity to officers by the lower court.<\/p>\n

On remand, the district court issued a ruling aligning with the Appeals Court decision, which meant the next step for the officers would be a jury trial. But, of course, the city of Des Moines isn\u2019t going to let that happen. Instead, it\u2019s going to \u201callow\u201d residents to pay the tab for the misconduct<\/a> of these officers. (h\/t Michael Vario<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\n

The city of Des Moines is paying a $125,000 settlement to a man who was detained by police for recording video outside the police station, court records show<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The city seems a bit bitter about this, but only appears to think the judicial system is flawed, rather than the officers whose rights violations triggered this lawsuit.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe city won this case at the district court level, which was ultimately reversed by a panel of Eighth Circuit judges,\u201d City Manager Scott Sanders said in a statement. \u201cWhile the city disagrees with the panel\u2019s determination, it also respects the judicial process and decided to settle the case and move forward.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To be extremely, explicitly clear, the city did not \u201cwin\u201d at the lower level. All it did was talk a judge into granting immunity to officers who certainly appear to have violated rights. That\u2019s not a \u201cwin\u201d on any<\/em> level. It\u2019s the sort of thing that encourages bad cops to be worse cops and ensures that no matter what happens, it will be the general public forced to pay the bills and suffer the losses. <\/p>\n

\nFiled Under: 4th amendment<\/a>, 8th circuit<\/a>, brad youngblut<\/a>, daniel robbins<\/a>, des moines<\/a>, qualified immunity<\/a>, recording police<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n