Iowa Supreme Court sides with Tinker after much debate over First Amendment

Tinker v. Des Moines is a very influential court case regarding freedom of speech within schools. Marybeth Tinker and her brother John Tinker both wore black armbands to school in support of a truce in the Vietnam War and were punished and sent home from school in December 1965. In a 7-2 decision, the court sided with the Tinker’s after the parents sued the school.

John and Marybeth Tinker grew up in a small Iowa town. Their parents were very active in the Civil Rights Movement. During the time, there was only one black family in their town and they weren’t allowed to use the public swimming pool. This didn’t fly with the Tinker’s. Mr. Tinker was a pastor in the small town, and after he tried to do something about the family that wasn’t allowed into the swimming pool his contract at the church was not renewed. This caused them to move to Des Moines to a church, and the same thing happened there after he was helping black people. “By the time the war in Vietnam was building up, it was natural for us to be opposed to it,” explained John Tinker. Growing up in a family who was so open and helping in this day in age wasn’t the norm. John and Marybeth take after their parents in this way.

In December of 1965 when they decided they were going to wear the black armbands to school, the faculty held a meeting to acknowledge this because they saw it as a problem. They created a policy that stated anyone to wear the armbands to school would be asked to remove them, and failure to obey the policy would result in suspension. Marybeth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore them one day and were sent home. Marybeth stated, “I decided to go ahead and try to be brave like other kids I had seen on the news as examples.” The next day, John wore one and it ended in the same result. When John was called into the office and his mother was called, she agreed that John ought to be able to express his beliefs.

The suppression of student speech often happens because students speak out about issues the school is causing, but this was a different case. The Tinker family ended up suing the Des Moines Independent Community School District for violating their right of expression and proposed an injunction to the court to prevent the school from disciplining students for this reason. Little did they know, this was a four year long battle.

The Tinkers were forced to appeal to the Supreme Court directly after the district court dismissed the case on a tied voting count. During the oral argument on November 12, 1968, Dan L. Johnson, the Tinker’s lawyer stated, “I think they intended, I think they chose the message, chose the method of expression, your honor, which would not be distracting — distracting when they are in class.” Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White replied, “Physically, it wouldn’t make a noise, it wouldn’t cause a commotion but don’t you think it would cause some people to direct their attention to the armband and the Vietnam War and think about that rather than what they were thinking about — supposed to be thinking about in the classroom?” Although Justice White may be right, this doesn’t mean the students aren’t allowed to do so in the eyes of the law and the First Amendment.

The court’s final decision ruled a 7-2 decision in favor of the Tinker’s. The court concluded that students don’t lose their First Amendment rights when they enter a school. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In order to make a policy such as the one they made about the armbands in 1965, the school has to prove that the actions would interfere with school operations. Wearing the armbands was a silent act, that may have caused slight distractions. It did not interfere with school operations.

In my opinion, I think John and Marybeth Tinker had every right to wear the black armbands to school. It didn’t disrupt or harm anyone. It was a silent form of showing their stance on the Vietnam War. According to Dan Johnson, in this school, there was no general prohibition against political emblems like the armbands. Therefore, I think the move to make a policy against them was biased for the situation. I believe one of the major reasons why the students found themselves in so much trouble is because the opinion they sided with was an uncommon opinion. During the time this happened, it was much more rare for someone to have an opposing opinion such as this. I side with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Tinker vs. Des Moines is used today as an example for students’ right to free speech. This case has also been cited in many cases after having to do with freedom of speech in schools. Marybeth Tinker has created a tour called “Tinker Tour”. She goes around the US and teaches students about her story and also teaches them about civics in general. Both John and Marybeth think it is extremely important for students to be informed about the First Amendment, which is a major reason for the Tinker Tour.

Riding With Officer Lechtenberg

On Monday, April 8 at 9:00 a.m., I got to ride along with patrol officer Austin Lechtenberg. Officer Lechtenberg attended Wartburg College and also played baseball there. After graduation, he took a job offer as a police officer in Indianola, Iowa. He worked there for about a year, and then moved to Cedar Falls to follow his fiance. Before we got in the vehicle, he gave me a tour of the police department and I also saw a police officer I recognized while walking through.

Being a young officer, I was able to relate with him well and have good conversation. After talking for a while, I found out he was friends with and played baseball in college with one of my old high school friends.

As we began the drive, he explained to me that there are 3 areas police cover in Cedar Falls. We covered area 3, which is everything south of 12th Street and east of main. He showed me the other two areas on his computer. One of the first things I asked him about was theft from retail stores. Working at Old Navy, I have seen this happen first hand, and I wanted to hear more about it. He told me some of the most common places they get video coverage from are Walmart, Kohls, Scheels, and Old Navy. Officer Lechtenberg explained to me that what happens most the time when they arrest someone for theft is that they will have a $200 bond so they’ll bond out right away.

Officer Lechtenberg currently works 1st shift, but prefers 3rd because he thinks they’re more fun and there is less traffic. There are 9 other officers that work 1st shift as well, and this stays the same year round. I was very curious about the college and party scene and how this affects the Cedar Falls Department. I asked him how they deal with this and under what circumstances do they charge people. He said, “We only charge people if it’s their second offense.” Their job is to keep people safe and usually they just shut down parties, and if anyone is charged it would be the people living at the residence. They are also told not to run after people at college parties, but he said sometimes he wishes they could. Third shift is also the busiest shift, which is also during bar close.

The next topic I brought up was speeding. He told me the most common streets for speeding are South Main and Hudson that he’s noticed. This doesn’t surprise me at all as I’ve probably sped on those streets as well. He told me his main goal isn’t to sit in one spot and hand out speeding tickets every day. He said, “I like to drive around and look for stuff, I don’t like sitting as much.” To me, this seemed like something a good police officer would do. I don’t necessarily agree with just trying to give out as many speeding tickets as you can. Officer Lechtenburg said usually he only makes a traffic stop for speeding if that person is going over ten over. He stated, “I’ll usually knock the ticket down to 5 or 10 under what they were going if I issue a ticket.”

I asked Officer Lechtenberg what the most dangerous situation is that he has been with, because who wouldn’t want to know? As he is a newer cop, he said he hasn’t seen anything too crazy, but when he was working in Indianola he had a situation where a girl had a gun to her boyfriend. She fired the gun but it didn’t hit him. This happened when he was on the job for just 6 months, so this situation was memorable to him. He also went into detail about a shooting on the hill that happened within the past year. He wasn’t involved, but it was a big deal for them to deal with. The shooter shot 10 rounds, with one going through the window of Octopus. They never ended up finding the person who did this and nobody would speak up on the situation, so they believe it was gang related.

Around 9:40 we made a traffic stop and pulled over a man for speeding. He was going 48 in a 35 and was given a verbal warning. He was actually driving a company vehicle and also didn’t have his license on him. Officer Lechtenberg came back to the squad car and looked him up by name and birth date and showed me how it was done. I was able to capture video of this stop.

The next topic I brought up was racial profiling. This topic is huge right now, and especially with police. I asked him if he has ever been accused of racial profiling. He responded, “I haven’t personally, but one of our African American officers arrested a Hispanic guy, and he said he was profiling him.” This hasn’t been a prominent issue that Officer Lechtenberg is aware of, but it definitely does happen whether the officer actually makes a decision based on race or not.

Officer Lechtenberg told me he was happy and excited that Cedar Falls will have a new station at Main Street and Greenhill. This will be a great addition for them as they are currently in the city hall basement and as he said, is in older shape.

As weather can get bad in the cold Iowa winters, I have always wondered what police officers do when roads aren’t drivable and they are on duty. This winter we had many storms like this. He said they still are out driving, unless it gets so bad where you can’t drive, then they go back to the station. He explained the importance of them being out in bad weather as there are many more accidents at these times.

On our drive back to the station, I asked about drugs. To me, Cedar Falls seemed like a safer town, and you don’t hear about a lot of drug busts. He responded, “We do have them but not as much when I was in Indianola. But, just because they aren’t as prominent here doesn’t mean they aren’t still floating around. They definitely are.” He said there was a big meth issue in Indianola, which he hasn’t ran into as much in the Cedar Falls area.

Lastly, when we got back to the city hall he gave me a full tour of his patrol vehicle. The officers in Cedar Falls all become trained in fire, so there is equipment for that in the back. The seats in the back of the car are hard plastic and the back seat is very small. I found this out while sitting in the back of a cop car when my friend once got in an accident. I got to see the spotlight and also sit in the drivers seat of the car.

Overall, this experience was great. It was much different being in the car from that point of view from being a regular driver on the street. Many times when a car would slow way down in front of him he would make a comment about how people always do that, but when I thought about it I do the same. It made me remember that cops aren’t bad guys, they don’t drive around trying to get you in trouble, they are out there to keep you safe. Officer Lechtenberg was a great officer to ride along with and I had a good experience. The ride ended around 10:10 a.m.

State vs Roig Gonzalez Round Two: My First Court Experience

On January 28, 2018, I went to the Blackhawk County Courthouse in room 413 and watched approximately one hour of the State vs. Carlos Alejandro Roig Gonzalez. This hearing was led by Judge Bradley J. Harris. I felt an urge of excitement as I entered this room because I had heard of the case prior.

As I sat down in the courtroom it was completely silent from the time I sat down til the time I left. There were not many observers besides one man who seemed to be a reporter and two females who seemed to be there for the defendant. I was originally sitting in a different room, but they advised me to come to this hearing as they knew it would be very interesting, and I am thankful for this. The jury was a diverse group of people. I could also tell they varied in ages. Most of the time I spend in the courtroom was without the jury present because it was a discussion on what they were going to show the jury. I’m sure being on jury duty is not a fun thing for many, but they were respectful and all had notepads to take notes when needed so it showed me they were there to listen and do their job.

Previously, Carlos Roig Gonzalez had been convicted of robbing Kay Jewelers in Viking Plaza in Cedar Falls. There had been two other robberies, Dollar Tree and Sally’s Beauty, they believe were so similar that he was involved in these as well. The purpose of this trial is to prove he is guilty of these two robberies as well. This was not the first day of the trial, so when the hearing began they noted that the day before they had discussed evidence in the Kay Jewelers Incident. As stated above, the Kay Jewelers case was well-known to me as I work in Viking Plaza at Old Navy which is very close. All our employees were informed on the incident when it happened, but I never actually knew if they found the suspect, let alone convicted one.

First, Cedar Falls Public Safety Officer Jovan Creighton spoke as a witness. He was the 911 responder to the Dollar Tree Incident that took place on the night of December 26, 2017. Creighton has been employed as a Cedar Falls officer since 2013. He recalls dispatch stating a male robbed dollar tree and massed employees. When he arrived, he ID’d a male and determined he did not rob the store. The store was empty besides the male and one older woman who was not in sight of the register during the incident. There were two clerks working, which both had red eyes meaning they had been sprayed with pepper spray. He referred to these two individuals as “Mr. Lugg” and a woman named “Malina”. These employees needed treated with medical assistance and an ambulance came.

During Officer Creighton’s time on the scene at Dollar Tree, he was aware of another robbery that had happened within a similar time frame at Sally’s Beauty in Waterloo. The description of the suspect was that he was 5’8”, white/hispanic, slender, wore a puffy black coat, was armed with a knife, and his face was covered because his coat was zipped up high. Creighton can see all communication in the area and believed the Sally’s and Dollar Tree robber were likely the same. There is a CAD computer system inside officer’s vehicles that show if something happens in surrounding areas. If it is flashing red that means it is more serious, which was what he saw when the Sally’s Beauty robbery happened. Based on the clothing the suspect was wearing, Officer Creighton says the Murphy USA gas station had video of the possible suspect. He could not recall if this was before or after the incident when Judge Bradley Harris asked.

Assistant County Attorney Elizabeth O’Donnell asked Judge Harris to show the footage from both Kay’s and Dollar Tree incidents to the jury so they could compare the two incidents to prove Roig Gonzales was the suspect in both. We got to watch the Kay’s video footage and it was extremely intense. I remember looking over at the defendant thinking, “Wow, how could he do something like this?” as he massed the obedient store workers. An interesting fact about this case is that store employees had his name on record for a ring, so he had been in there previously checking the place out and then decided to rob it.

A main purpose of watching this video footage was the viewing of the parking lot from both incidents. These both showed a silver vehicle with a broken side tail light. Attorney O’Donnell pointed this out and spoke of the importance of showing the jury this video because in the end it is still up to the jury to decide if the suspect is the same from both incidents. The video she prepared for us to watch was 3 minutes. There were also items found in the house from the Kay’s Robbery, which is irrelevant to this situation, but they said this speaking on behalf of the other case making the guilty decision credible.

At 42 seconds Defense Attorney Brian Johnson said anything from 1:11 to 2:15 of the video should not be shown as the suspect had already been shown and identified. He stated on behalf of the Dollar Tree parking lot surveillance video, “What I need to see if any evidence in there regarding the tail light.” His argument was that the jury only needs to see the video for identification purposes, but Attorney Elizabeth O’Donnell disagreed. At conclusion of this conversation, Judge Bradley Harris overruled Johnson’s objection and stated the footage would be allowed. He also stated both clerks at Kay’s and Dollar Tree will be allowed to testify. Judge Harris also added, “However, testimonies regarding their fear, feelings, or things like that are irrelevant.” I believe he said this because if they came into court with a sob story this could make the jury become bias about the defendant, and sway away from the main purpose of this trial.

After this has happened, Attorney Johnson stands and asks if video or photos will be allowed. He stated, “Video isn’t necessary for identification purposes so I will object on that.” Judge Harris replied, “The state is entitled to show whatever is necessary to show those facts.” In conclusion of my time at the courthouse, the video is allowed to be seen, not just the photos.

I was a little disappointed because the two clerks from Kay’s were supposed to come speak to us and they did not show up, but this was the only thing I would have changed about my experience. Overall, I was extremely happy with the hearing I got to sit in on. We stayed for a little over an hour but there was a break to wait for the jury to come back and we had to be back for class. This experience was something I will forever value and it made me think outside the box.

Iowa Supreme Court… Cedar Rapids Officer Involved in Shooting – An Analysis of Sources

In the early morning of November 1, 2016, two Cedar Rapids residents, along with a Cedar Rapids officer, encountered a situation that would change their lives. Officer Lucas Jones pulled over Jerime Mitchell while he was traveling in an easterly direction on H Avenue in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Officer Jones increased his speed above the speed limit to follow Mitchell without a probable cause. Not only did he go above the speed limit, but he completely ran through a stop sign and was crossing over the center line while driving through a curve on Coe Road. He then turned on his lights to make Mitchell stop and pull over.

According to the text of the petition to jury, Officer Jones claimed this traffic stop was due to the rear license plate lights not being operational, even though they were, in fact, operating. Therefore, the officer had no reason for pulling over Mitchell and his wife. Around 1:17:35 a.m. Officer Jones exited his vehicle and approached Mitchell’s vehicle. Mitchell was asked for his license and registration and provided copies of these documents. Without being told why he was stopped, he was asked by Officer Jones to exit his vehicle.

Because Mitchell did not immediately step out of his vehicle, the officer attempted to open the drivers side door. He then grabbed Mitchell’s arm without probable cause, put his hands behind his back, and told him he was under arrest without even telling him why. Mitchell was also pushed against his vehicle with force intended to cause harm. On the dash cam video, Mitchell was heard asking officer Jones what he did. He peacefully questioned the reason for his arrest multiple times and did not get answers, and was leg sweeped onto the ground. At this point, the officer called out his canine unit and was heard on video yelling “Kill him! Kill him!” Mitchell seemed to fear for his life and tempted to get back into his vehicle along with Jones holding onto him. Officer Jones pulled his gun out of his holster, pointed it at Mitchell’s head and open fired multiple shots striking him in the neck.

Mitchell is not paralyzed from the neck down. According to the text of petition to jury it states, “At no point did Plaintiff JERIME ERON MITCHELL ever grab, push, pull, strike, or otherwise touch defendant OFFICER LUCAS JONES or his canine prior to the unprovoked and unwarranted attack by OFFICER LUCAS JONES and his canine.” He also was not carrying any weapons on him that would have put the officer at danger. The information above is all within the text of petition to jury, and is what the court pronounces true. This document is available for the public, but there is some information withheld for this case. This withheld information was discussed in the Oral Argument of the Iowa Supreme Court.

Case No. 18-0124, Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids et al., was discussed on February 5, 2019 at 7  p.m. Attorney Will Stone spoke for the City of Cedar Rapids and attorney Laura Seelau spoke for plaintiff Jerime Mitchell. Defendants tried to pursue a protective order prohibiting plaintiffs from sharing certain information such as medical records with the media/public. Found in the final brief it states the argument for the oral discussion as, “THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ORDERING JONES AND THE CITY TO PRODUCE THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER CEDAR RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT MATERIALS WITHOUT FIRST ENTERING A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRESERVE THE DOCUMENTS’ CONFIDENTIALITY.

Judge David Wiggins asked Stone, speaking on behalf of the City of Cedar Rapids, “What makes this record confidential?” Stone said it is under code 22.75. Judge Brendt Appel told Stone this is mainly seeking protection of records of the plaintiff and that doesn’t have anything to do with the defendant. Stone explained, ““It doesn’t just protect records from the City and Officer Jones, but it protects any medical records of the Plaintiff” This had the judges asking him what his reason is for wanting those documents to be protected. Stone just said that it is under code 22.75 and cannot be given to people outside this case.

Laura Seelau disagreed with him. She spoke, “Our interest here is getting all the information out to the public.” She also explained by disclosing these records, this increases the work attorneys have to do and it is not in the best interest of the plaintiff. The judges began discussing with Seelau that it is in her best interest to decide if this is even a 22.75 issue. Seelau said their position is that unless the defendant and their attorneys can set forth something, that the standard hasn’t been met. The plaintiff’s team believes public should be able to see what’s going on behind closed doors. “Our position is that the litigation process is open to the public.”, said Seelau. It is clear that having this information held from the public could hurt Mitchell and also not give the jury enough information, or even the information they deserve to know.

It is also clear that Will Stone does not want this information in the eye of the public because it could potentially hurt the defendant. At the conclusion of this oral argument, Judge Wiggins asked Stone, “Why are you afraid of them having the option of not having it protected?” Again, Stone dodged this question and also brought up other cases such as a case with Hawkeye that code 22.75 was used.

Important information that is currently available to the media is the dash cam video footage from that night. In this video appears many of the same things described in the text of petition to jury. It showed officer Jones following Mitchell and going quite fast around the described curve. As the officer pulls over the canine is going crazy and barking. He is seen asking for Mitchell’s license and documents. It is also clear that Mitchell is looking back at officer Jones asking him why he is being arrested over and over. You can also hear the officer yell “Kill him! Kill him!” to the canine as stated in the text for jury. This video is solid proof that Jones used unneeded violence and force toward Mitchell. In the video it is hard to tell if the license plate is out of not, but it was stated to be working. This is a very important piece of evident for the plaintiff as it is proof of what happened.

There are many articles giving further information on this incident and investigation. According to the Gazette newspaper, the Mitchells are suing the city and Jones for negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium, and asking for damages. According to this article, the police found a pound of marijuana and a scale in the back of Mitchell’s truck, but this wasn’t known by Officer Jones at the time. The civil trial has been moved to August 11, 2019. There were also comments noted about the oral argument. Mitchell’s attorneys argue that the police department is funded with taxpayer money, therefore the public has a right to know how it’s being run. This is a good point by them, and will be determined in the trial this coming summer.  

An article from KCRG noted that this was not the first time Jones had shot someone. In fact, the time before was less than a year prior and the person shot was shot over 20 times, which is completely unneeded in any situation. Mitchell’s wife, Bracken, stated that Officer Jones may not have killed Mitchell, but he took his life because nothing will ever be the same for them. Officer Jones has no reason to fire shots. Under law 704.1 Reasonable Force, it states,

Reasonable force” means that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist alike force or threat.

Therefore, in order to use a deadly force, such as a gun, an officer must believe they are in danger. Because mitchell had no weapons on him, did not shove, push, or harm Officer Jones in any way, Jones had no reason to use deadly force on him. After reviewing these articles and documents, the information found is that Offiver Jones pulled Jerime Eron Mitchell over without an appropriate reason, and also assaulted him without reason as well. As for the subject of disclosing information, it is clear that each side has their own reasoning for why they want or do not want the information given to the public. According to the Des Moines Register, “When justices questioned Stone about why the records should be kept from the public, he said that releasing some information could compromise future investigations of shootings involving officers.” Mitchell’s case against the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa is set for trial to be held in 2020.