Wilson v. Lamp, No. 20-1674 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff and his son filed suit against three officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, violation of the Iowa Constitution, and common law invasion of privacy. The district court denied summary judgment, but reversed in part and remanded for trial. On remand, the district court held a trial on the state law claims, as well as the federal excessive force claim. On the state claims for invasion of privacy and Iowa illegal search or seizure, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law. The jury found in favor of defendants on the excessive force claims.
In Wilson I, the Eighth Circuit ruled that defendants' acts were reasonable as a matter of law. The court explained that the substantive standard for search and seizure does not vary between Iowa and federal law. Therefore, any error was harmless, since it would not change the result: regardless of who theoretically must show the officers' conduct was reasonable, defendants did show their conduct was reasonable. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the state search and seizure claims. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the invasion of privacy claim. In this case, plaintiff cannot state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion because the officers' conduct was not a highly offensive intrusion on the private affairs or concerns of plaintiffs, and the stop of plaintiff's vehicle was lawful. The court also concluded that the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of Fourth Amendment and Iowa Constitution excessive force claims. Because the Iowa Supreme Court's standard for excessive force does not materially differ from the federal standard, the court explained that the district court did not need to separately instruct the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the case, see Wilson v. Lamp, 901 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2016). On remand, a jury found for plaintiffs on their federal excessive force claim and the district court granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs' state law claims for invasion of privacy and Iowa illegal search and seizure; Plaintiffs appeal. Held: in the prior case, this court granted defendants summary judgment on the corresponding Fourth Amendment claims and as Iowa and federal law do not materially differ, the district court properly dismissed the state-law based claims for unreasonable search and seizure under the law of the case doctrine; the district court also properly granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs' state law invasion-of-privacy claim as the officers' conduct in the case was not a highly offensive intrusion on the private affairs or concerns of plaintiffs and the stop of plaintiffs' vehicle was otherwise lawful; jury instructions on elements of Fourth Amendment and Iowa Constitution excessive force claims were consistent with this court's directions on remand; since Iowa's standard for excessive force does not materially differ from the federal standard, the court did not need to give the jury a separate instruction on Iowa law. [ April 23, 2021 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.