Norris v. Paulson
Defendant police officer, who shot and injured plaintiff during an arrest, appealed a district court ruling denying her summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim alleging unreasonable seizure in violation of the Iowa Constitution and a separate claim for common law assault. Defendant contended the state constitutional claim is no longer viable after Burnett v. Smith, 990 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 2023). Defendant also contended the court erred in denying her a summary judgment on her justification defense. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Plaintiff seeks further review.
Bryan Norris, Applicant
vs.
Trudy Paulson, Resister
and
City of Des Moines, Defendant.
Attorney for Resister
John O. Haraldson
Attorney for Applicant
Robert G. Rehkemper
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Sep 11, 2024 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (11 pages)
In September 2019, Des Moines Police Officer Trudy Paulson shot Bryan Norris while responding to complaints about a homeless camp near the Racoon River. Norris sued Paulson and the city alleging unreasonable seizure under the state constitution and common law assault. The district court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment. After that denial, our supreme court overruled Godfrey v. State, 898 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2017), which had recognized standalone suits for damages under the Iowa Constitution. See Burnett v. Smith, 990 N.W.2d 289, 307 (Iowa 2023). In this interlocutory appeal, the city argues that Burnett eliminated Norris’s constitutional claim. It also contends that Officer Paulson’s use of force was reasonable under Iowa Code section 804.8 (2022). OPINION HOLDS: On the first issue, the city is correct that Norris’s constitutional claim cannot move forward after Burnett. On the second issue, the district court was correct in deciding the common law assault claim was for the jury to decide. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for trial on the assault claim.