 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stine v. City of Lisbon9/26/2001
Neil Stine appeals the district court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in his wrongful arrest suit. He contends the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment motion because genuine issues of material fact remain for the jury to determine. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In February of 1998 Neil Stine was driving his pickup truck when he became aware of a police car following him with its lights flashing. Instead of pulling over, Stine continued to drive another half mile until he reached his driveway. Officer Ricky Lee Scott then informed Stine he was under arrest for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Stine was transported to the Linn County Jail and charged with failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, driving left of center, no taillights, and no license plate light. He later pled guilty to driving left of center and having no taillights.
In August of 1998 Stine brought suit against the City of Lisbon and Officer Scott alleging he had been wrongfully arrested for drunk driving, although he was never charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI). In his deposition Stine admitted that he did not yield to an emergency vehicle. Defendants then brought a motion for summary judgment claiming Stine failed to prove his detention was unlawful because he admitted Scott had probable cause to arrest him for failing to yield. Defendants also argued Stine could not prove his arrest was unlawful because he pled guilty to two charges. Finding no dispute of material fact existed, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, Stine claims an issue of material fact exists as to whether he was arrested for OWI or for the traffic offenses. Defendants respond that there is no support in the record for Stine's claim that he was arrested for OWI. Defendants also contend the issue is irrelevant because Officer Scott had probable cause to arrest Stine for the traffic violations and Stine's plea of guilty to two of the charges precludes him from relitigating whether the arrest was unlawful.
II. Scope of Review.
We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for errors at law. Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115, 121 (Iowa 2001). The record before the district court is reviewed to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Id.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion. Phillips v. Covenant Clinic, 625 N.W.2d 714, 717 (Iowa 2001). The court must consider every legitimate inference that can be reasonably deduced from the record in favor of the resisting party. Id. at 718.
An inference is legitimate if it is rational, reasonable, and otherwise permissible under the governing substantive law. On the other hand, an inference is not legitimate if it is based upon speculation or conjecture. If reasonable minds may differ on the resolution of an issue, a genuine issue of material fact exists.
*2 Id.
III. Wrongful Arrest.
Stine argues that there is a dispute as to whether he was arrested for the traffic violations or for OWI. While Stine was never charged with OWI, he claimed in his deposition that another officer informed him he was ticketed for the offense. He did not know the name of the officer and offers no other evidence in support of his claim. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 237(e) states:
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but the response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that the
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|