SSB 1106

This limitation does not apply to damages for medical expenses. The bill bars a claim for arrest without probable cause against a peace officer of the state if probable cause or arguable probable cause existed for any charge at the time of the claimant’s arrest. The bill requires a district court to determine whether the undisputed material facts of a case establish that arguable probable cause or probable cause existed at the time of the claimant’s arrest. An affirmative finding bars the claimant’s claim. The bill grants qualified immunity from suit for arrest without probable cause to an officer who believed there was arguable probable cause or probable cause based on the information available to the officer, if the officer acted objectively reasonably, or if the arrest was supported by a warrant, unless the officer knew that the warrant was invalid. The bill instructs district courts to construe the Code section liberally in favor of peace officers. The bill enumerates certain actions that do not constitute arrest with respect to a tort claim that has arrest as an element. These actions are: a seizure or detention for the purpose of an investigatory stop; a seizure by use of force by certain employees for the purpose of defending a person from a perceived threat of bodily harm or death if the person using force reasonably believes that the use of force is reasonable in the circumstances; and the restraint of a person in custody. The bill instructs district courts to determine as a matter of law whether a seizure constitutes an arrest when hearing a claim for arrest without probable cause. _____ The bill requires a person bringing a tort claim against the state or an officer, employee, or elected official of the state for which recklessness is an element to prove recklessness by clear and convincing evidence. The bill also requires a district court hearing such a claim to determine not less than 60 days before trial whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to present the issue of recklessness to the finder of fact at trial. The bill grants to the state or an officer, employee, or elected official of the state the right to a bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages in any tort action where a claimant seeks punitive damages. The bill also limits punitive damages to two times the amount of compensatory damages. DIVISION II —— IOWA MUNICIPAL TORT CLAIMS ACT. The bill provides that a person cannot bring a tort arising out of an act or omission of an employee of a municipality in the execution or enforcement of any law against an employee of the municipality in the employee’s personal capacity unless the employee’s act constitutes willful and wanton conduct. The bill extends the immunity from tort liability, absent an express statute, granted to municipalities for claims based upon or arising out of an act or omission in connection with emergency response services to nonprofit corporations providing the same services pursuant to a written contract with a city, county, township, or benefited fire district. Any such contract and any modifications thereto shall be filed with the secretary of state within 30 days of their effectiveness. The bill requires the governing body of a municipality to purchase insurance or risk pool coverage for claims for punitive damages in certain cases against its employees and volunteers arising out of an act or omission within the scope of such a person’s duties. The bill allows the governing body of a municipality to purchase such insurance or coverage for punitive damages in all other actions. _____ immunity. The bill requires a person bringing a tort claim against a county or township, or an officer, employee, or elected official of a county or township to submit notice of the claim to the county attorney in writing not later than 180 days after the claim accrues. The bill also requires a person bringing a tort claim against a city or an officer, employee, or elected official of a city to submit notice of the claim to the city clerk in writing not later than 180 days after the claim accrues. The bill limits recovery of compensatory damages for claims of excessive use of force, arrest without probable cause, or false arrest against a municipality or a peace officer of the municipality to $100,000 per incident or occurrence. This limitation does not apply to damages for medical expenses. The bill bars a claim for arrest without probable cause against a peace officer of a municipality if probable cause or arguable probable cause existed for any charge at the time of the claimant’s arrest. The bill requires a district court to determine whether the undisputed material facts of a case establish that arguable probable cause or probable cause existed at the time of the claimant’s arrest. An affirmative finding bars the claimant’s claim. The bill grants qualified immunity from suit for arrest without probable cause to an officer who believed there was arguable probable cause or probable cause based on the information available to the officer, if the officer acted objectively reasonably, or if the arrest was supported by a warrant, unless the officer knew that the warrant was invalid. The bill instructs district courts to construe the Code section liberally in favor of peace officers. The bill enumerates certain actions that do not constitute arrest with respect to a tort claim that has arrest as an element. _____ perceived threat of bodily harm or death if the person using force reasonably believes that the use of force is reasonable in the circumstances; and the restraint of a person in custody. The bill instructs courts to determine as a matter of law whether a seizure constitutes an arrest when hearing a claim for arrest without probable cause. The bill requires a person bringing a tort claim against a municipality or an officer, employee, or elected official of the state for which recklessness is an element to prove recklessness by clear and convincing evidence. The bill also requires a court hearing such a claim to determine not less than 60 days before trial whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to present the issue of recklessness to the finder of fact at trial. The bill grants to the state or an officer, employee, or elected official of the state the right to a bifurcated trial on the issue of punitive damages in any tort action where a claimant seeks punitive damages. The bill also limits punitive damages to two times the amount of compensatory damages. DIVISION III —— ARRESTS. The bill allows a sheriff responsible for the transport of a person arrested pursuant to a warrant to modify any designation relating to the transport of that person on or attached to the warrant without affecting the validity of the warrant or giving rise to a tort claim. The bill changes the definition of “arrest” to require the initiating of a criminal process against a person before an arrest has occurred. DIVISION IV —— EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY PROVISIONS. The bill is effective upon enactment and applies to all claims accruing on or after the effective date of the bill.