Thursday, September 10, 2026

How to get engaged with the Flock Safety debate in Iowa

In Iowa, the debate over public safety versus government surveillance has escalated rapidly. A major joint investigation by the University of Iowa Technology Law Clinic and the ACLU of Iowa revealed that ALPR cameras have spread to more than 60 Iowa communities. The report sparked a wave of public backlash across the state, mirroring the exact concerns about lack of transparency, data tracking, and public-private collusion with vendors like Flock Safety and Motorola. [1, 2, 3]
The momentum is shifting toward public redress in Iowa. The public is leveraging local, legislative, and transparency tactics to effectively push back.

1. Disrupting the Local Council Process (The "Ditch Flock" Movement)

Because these contracts are signed at the municipal level, localized pressure on city councils is proving highly effective in Iowa. [4, 5]

  • Recent Successes: Public pressure and privacy debates have recently forced cities like Indianola and Waukee (in the Des Moines area) to completely suspend their contracts and pull down their Flock cameras. [5]
  • Leveraging City Council Agendas: Surveillance companies often pitch these contracts quietly, slipping them into city council "consent agendas" where they are voted on en masse without public debate. The ACLU of Iowa's "Pump the Brakes on ALPRs" Campaign explicitly urges citizens to check past city council minutes, email their city representatives, and demand public hearings before contracts are renewed. [6, 7]

2. State-Level Legislative Lobbying

Iowa currently lacks a comprehensive law regulating mass ALPR surveillance, making it a "patchwork" of data-sharing rules. However, citizens have successfully pressured lawmakers to act: [8, 9]

  • The ALPR Guardrails Bill: The Iowa House and Senate have actively advanced legislation (such as HF 2161 and SF 2284) aimed at clipping the wings of these networks. The bipartisan push seeks to force municipal oversight, mandate local ordinances before deployment, ban facial recognition software on ALPRs, and force police to delete all non-investigative plate data within 24 to 30 days. [4, 10, 11]
  • The "Private Vendor" Loophole: While candidates for governor have indicated a willingness to sign data safeguard laws, localized pressure is shifting toward ensuring these bills don't leave a backdoor loophole for private vendors to retain ownership of Iowans' travel data. [11, 12]

3. Demanding Audits & Exposing "Secret" Directives

Investigative reports have exposed that public safety technology is sometimes explicitly obscured from the public record to avoid scrutiny.

  • Exposing the Paper Trail: An investigative report by 404 Media recently unearths that one county in Iowa explicitly instructed officers in its usage policy: "DO NOT MENTION ALPR USAGE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE... DO NOT MENTION ALPR USAGE IN YOUR REPORT OR COMPLAINT UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY," telling them to cite generic "county resources" instead.
  • The Mechanism for Redress: Knowing this, citizens and legal advocates are aggressively using Iowa open records laws to demand data logs. Under intense scrutiny, Flock Safety was forced to shorten its standard retention windows across several jurisdictions from 30 days to 7 days and introduce mandatory case-code entry requirements to prevent police officers from freely scrolling through vehicle locations without a specific criminal case number. [12, 13, 14]

How to Take Immediate Action in Iowa

If you want to take a step toward addressing this locally, the most impactful path is utilizing the ACLU of Iowa Stop Government Surveillance Toolkit. This toolkit provides direct guidance on how to: [7]
  1. Draft an open records request to your local police department or county sheriff to unearth their hidden surveillance contracts.
  2. Track whether your town is currently considering an ALPR vendor contract on upcoming city council agendas.
  3. Lobby your state representatives to vote in favor of strict data-purging timelines and warrant mandates for license plate databases. [4, 7, 14]

 

at

Wednesday, September 9, 2026

Can our monetary system ensure fair labor earns a minimal standard of living?

Ensuring that a full-time worker can afford basic room and board is one of the central challenges of modern economic policy. Because the cost of housing and food is driven by separate market forces than the price of labor, societies typically use a combination of income-boosting policies and supply-side interventions to bridge the gap. [1, 2]
Economists and policymakers generally approach this problem through three main strategic pillars:

1. Reforming Incomes and Wages


  • Living Wage Laws: Unlike standard minimum wages, a living wage is dynamically indexed to the localized cost of living. This ensures that a 40-hour work week automatically covers local rent, utilities, and groceries. [3]
  • Direct Income Supplements: Programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) use taxpayer funds to supplement the wages of low-income workers. This places the financial baseline on the state rather than entirely on the employer. [4, 5]
  • Strengthening Labor Power: Protecting collective bargaining rights allows workers to negotiate wages that scale with corporate productivity and regional inflation. [4, 6]

2. Lowering the Cost of Housing (Room)


  • Reforming Land Use and Zoning: Many cities restrict high-density housing, which artificially chokes supply and drives up costs. Relaxing zoning laws to allow for microunits, co-living spaces, or accessory dwelling units (ADUs) substantially lowers rental entry points. [7, 8, 9, 10]
  • Social and Public Housing Options: Building government-subsidized or community-owned "social housing" removes the profit motive from a baseline percentage of the housing stock, keeping rents permanently tied to income. [9, 11]
  • Tenant Protections: Implementing localized rent stabilization and robust eviction protections prevents sudden, predatory spikes in living costs that outpace wage growth. [9, 11]

3. Stabilizing Food Security (Board)


  • Food Subsidies and Assistance: Integrating working poor families into streamlined food assistance programs helps ensure that an unexpected rent hike doesn't result in hunger.
  • Supply Chain Infrastructure: Investing in regional agricultural networks and reducing urban "food deserts" lowers the baseline cost of nutritious food by cutting logistics and distribution markups. [4, 12]

To explore how these policies apply to your perspective, let me know:

  • Do you lean more toward market-driven solutions (like cutting regulations to build more housing) or government interventions (like raising the minimum wage)?
  • Are you interested in looking at a specific region or country that has successfully balanced these two factors?



at

What to do about inflation

No single theoretical monetary system can completely eliminate inflation. While strict models like a hard gold standard, a fixed-supply cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin), or Friedrich Hayek’s Choice in Currency proposal attempt to remove human discretion from money creation, they only shift vulnerability to supply shocks, technological shifts, or velocity changes. [1]

Fixed-Supply and Commodity Systems

  • Gold/Commodity Standard: Ties money to a scarce physical resource; inflation is bound by new resource discovery, but systemic banking panics or sudden supply shifts can still destabilize prices.
  • Algorithmic/Fixed Crypto: Caps the absolute maximum number of units (e.g., 21 million bitcoins); eliminates state debasement, yet allows fluctuating market demand and velocity to create wild price swings (effectively structural inflation or deflation).

Free-Banking and Market Competition

  • Denationalized Money: Hayek’s theory suggests competing private currencies force issuers to maintain stable values to survive; it curtails runaway political printing, though transaction costs and mismatched asset backing can still cause localized price instability. [1]

Managed Fiscal Constraints

  • Modern Monetary Theory (MMT): Relies on taxation and spending adjustments rather than interest rates to actively squash demand-driven price spikes at full employment; it treats inflation as a regulatory signal rather than eliminating its root potential. [2, 3, 4]
If you'd like, let me know:
  • Are you interested in historical examples (like the gold standard's performance)?
  • Do you want to explore deflationary risks in fixed-supply models?
I can provide a deeper breakdown of how these systems handle real-world economic shocks.

 

at

Sunday, September 6, 2026

Why recording police in the Eighth Circuit is not yet clearly established

The Eighth Circuit’s hesitation in Robbins v. City of Des Moines stems from a mix of qualified immunity doctrine, judicial avoidance, and how the court treats the physical act of camera recording versus passive human observation. [1, 2, 3]
While the court acknowledged in Chestnut v. Wallace that recording and observing are closely linked, several key legal mechanics explain why the court stopped short of recognizing a clearly established right to record in Robbins: [1]
1. Circuit Split Dynamics and Strict Qualified Immunity Specificity
Under federal qualified immunity doctrine, a right must be "clearly established" by controlling Supreme Court or circuit precedent, or a robust consensus of persuasive authority.
When the Eighth Circuit decided Robbins, it faced a doctrinal loophole:
  • The Eighth Circuit had never explicitly issued a binding holding that recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment (unlike the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits). [1, 2]
  • In Chestnut, the court relied on out-of-circuit recording cases solely as an a fortiori justification to protect mere observation. Because Chestnut did not actually involve a camera or recording device, any language discussing recording was non-binding dicta, not a direct holding establishing a recording right. [1]
  • Supreme Court qualified immunity doctrine warns judges against defining rights at a "high level of generality." Thus, officers argue that establishing a right to "observe with your naked eyes" (Walker) does not automatically make it "clearly established" to every reasonable officer that pointing an electronic camera at vehicles and personnel near a secure building is protected. [1]
2. "Assumption Without Deciding" (Judicial Avoidance)
Instead of confronting the constitutional question head-on, the Robbins panel utilized the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The court wrote: [1]
“Assuming Robbins had a constitutionally protected right to record as he was doing in this case, that right is not absolute.” -- [FindLaw].
By assuming the right exists arguendo, the panel sidestepped creating binding precedent that would affirmatively establish the right to record for future plaintiffs within the Eighth Circuit. [1]
3. Safety, Context, and Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
The Eighth Circuit distinguished Robbins from Walker and Chestnut based on the surrounding security environment: [1]
  • In Walker and Chestnut, individuals watched ordinary traffic stops in public streets or parks from a safe distance. [1, 2]
  • In Robbins, Daniel Robbins was standing on the sidewalk outside police headquarters filming personnel and private vehicles entering and exiting the station. [1]
  • The court highlighted that officers were aware of recent vehicle thefts and a past ambush/stalking incident that led to the murder of officers. Because the First Amendment right to record in public is subject to "reasonable time, place, and manner" regulations, the court concluded that an officer assessing these security concerns could have reasonably believed Robbins’s conduct warranted an investigatory stop. [1, 2]
4. Naked-Eye Observation vs. Electronic Surveillance
From the Eighth Circuit's conservative perspective, physical looking and video surveillance carry different operational risks:
  • Passive observation (Walker) does not capture personal identifying details (e.g., license plates of undercover cars, schedules of off-duty civilian staff).
  • Targeted recording outside a secure facility was framed by the court as presenting distinct officer-safety concerns that blurred the line between First Amendment gathering and pre-attack reconnaissance. [1]
(Note: Although the Eighth Circuit upheld qualified immunity on the initial First Amendment detention claim, it did rule against the officers on Fourth Amendment grounds for holding Robbins's camera and phone for days without legal justification, leading to a $125,000 settlement with the city). [1]


at

Saturday, September 5, 2026

The Telecom Bill and Des Moines, Iowa

In Des Moines, Iowa, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 acted as an immediate catalyst for market consolidation, fundamentally restructuring who owned the local airwaves and how those stations were staffed. Prior to the bill’s passage, strict Federal Communications Commission (FCC) caps meant that no single company could dominate a market. The 1996 Act completely rewrote those rules. [1, 2]
The law impacted the Des Moines radio landscape in several significant ways:

1. The Rise of the "Des Moines Media Group" (Saga Communications)

Before 1996, legendary local stations like KIOA (93.3 FM), KRNT (1350 AM), and KSTZ (Star 102.5) operated under tighter cross-ownership limits. Following the bill's passage, Saga Communications aggressively expanded its footprint in the market. Saga bought out smaller, independent operations—such as acquiring the commercial rock station KFMG and transforming it into Lazer 103.3 (KAZR). By clustering these stations under one corporate umbrella at their Locust Street studios (operating collectively as the Des Moines Media Group), Saga was able to consolidate back-office operations, engineering, and sales staff that used to exist independently across multiple properties. [3, 4]

2. The iHeartMedia (Clear Channel) Mega-Cluster

The deregulatory wave allowed Clear Channel Communications (now iHeartMedia) to build a massive rival cluster in central Iowa. Clear Channel absorbed some of the most powerful signals in the state, bringing the legendary NewsRadio 1040 WHO (a 50,000-watt clear-channel giant), 107.5 KISS FM (KKDM), 100.3 The Bus (KDRB), and KXnO (1460 AM) all under the same corporate corporate umbrella. This meant that two out-of-state corporate entities (Saga, based in Michigan, and iHeartMedia, based in Texas) effectively controlled the vast majority of commercial radio listenership and ad revenue in the Des Moines metro area. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]

3. Staffing Reductions and the "Singular Sound"

With iHeartMedia and Saga controlling multiple stations in the same market, the staffing model shifted from live, locally-based teams to shared, automated resources.

  • Studio Consolidation: Dozens of local jobs for programming directors, news producers, and studio engineers disappeared as separate facilities were closed and operations were moved into single, shared corporate offices.
  • Voice-Tracking & Automation: The 1996 Act paved the way for massive investments in digital automation. Instead of hiring overnight or weekend disc jockeys from the Des Moines area, consolidated stations increasingly relied on voice-tracked talent broadcasting from other cities, or shared a single uniform playlist programmed from corporate headquarters. [6, 12]

4. The Counter-Reaction: Low-Power FM

The loss of localized, independent programming in Des Moines eventually sparked a localized counter-movement. In response to the sweeping consolidation of the late '90s, the FCC eventually opened up licensing for Low-Power FM (LPFM) stations to preserve a "diversity of voices" on the public airwaves. This regulatory pivot is precisely why independent entities later revived the KFMG name as a non-profit, low-power community radio station in 2007—aiming to fill the hyper-local programming gaps left behind by corporate consolidation. [4, 13, 14]
at

Impacts on radio broadcasting in the past half-decade

The staffing of American radio stations has undergone a radical transformation since the 1950s, shifting from deeply localized, human-dominated operations to highly centralized, automated networks. While the popular narrative often blames a single culprit—like the rise of streaming—the decline of live, on-air personalities is actually the result of a multi-decade convergence of political deregulation, corporate consolidation, and technological evolution.
The first major shift began with the political and regulatory rollbacks of the 1980s under the Reagan administration. For decades, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforced strict ownership caps to ensure media diversity, and required stations to broadcast a certain amount of local public interest programming. Under Reagan, the FCC began chipping away at these rules and relaxed anti-duopoly policies. This laid the groundwork for the most seismic regulatory shift in radio history: the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton. The 1996 Bill completely removed the national limit on the number of radio stations one company could own. This triggered an unprecedented wave of corporate consolidation. Companies like Clear Channel (now iHeartMedia) acquired hundreds of stations across the country, creating massive conglomerates.
To maximize profits and satisfy shareholders after these multi-billion-dollar buying sprees, consolidated networks looked for ways to slash operating costs. They found their solution by pairing corporate efficiency with rapid technological advancements. The proliferation of computerized functions—most notably digital automation software and "voice-tracking"—allowed a single announcer in a major market like Los Angeles to pre-record a show and broadcast it as if they were live in dozens of smaller cities. This eliminated the need for local, overnight, and weekend DJs, drastically shrinking station staff.
Finally, the dawn of the internet age completely disrupted the audio marketplace. The rise of digital music, streaming platforms, and podcasts stripped radio of its monopoly on audio entertainment. As listenership fragmented and traditional advertising revenues shifted to digital spaces, radio corporations faced severe financial strain. Caught between massive corporate debt from the post-1996 consolidation boom and shrinking ad budgets, stations doubled down on cost-cutting measures, leading to rounds of layoffs that further thinned out remaining on-air talent.
Ultimately, the radio station of today is a product of structural evolution. Regulatory changes legalized massive corporate consolidation, while digital technology provided the tools to automate the airwaves, and the internet forced a scramble for financial survival. Together, these forces transformed radio from a live, locally staffed community pillar into a streamlined, centralized digital utility.
at

Monday, August 17, 2026

Lawsuit against Des Moines speed cameras awaits trial court decision

Maury v. City of Des Moines

In a class-action lawsuit that stretches back to 2017 and a trip to the Iowa Supreme Court, Polk County District Court is poised to issue its ruling following a long-awaited bench trial back in June, and tings don't look good for the city.
While a judge must make the final decision, Iowa law strongly favors the plaintiffs for several major reasons:

1. The Core Legal Violation is Already Settled

The biggest advantage for the plaintiffs is that the Iowa Supreme Court has already ruled that the City of Des Moines acted unlawfully. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the city cannot use the tax offset program to collect traffic camera fines without first going to court and winning a formal judgment. Because of a legal rule called the "law-of-the-case," the city is completely blocked from arguing that its actions were legal. The city's "unjust enrichment"—taking and keeping money it had no legal right to—is already a settled fact.

2. The City’s Primary Defense is Weak Under Iowa Law

The city’s main hope to avoid paying refunds relies on the Voluntary Payment Doctrine (arguing that the plaintiffs chose to pay the fines to get their refunds quickly, so they cannot ask for the money back). However, this defense is incredibly weak under Iowa law for two reasons:
  • Iowa does not widely recognize it: The plaintiffs correctly point out that in the major Iowa case State ex rel. Miller v. Vertrue, Inc. (2013), the Iowa Supreme Court explicitly stated, "We have never recognized the voluntary payment doctrine and decline to do so now."
  • The "Duress" exception applies: Even in states that use the doctrine, it does not apply if a payment was made under duress (pressure or coercion). Freezing a citizen's entire state tax refund over a small, unproven traffic ticket is highly likely to be viewed by a judge as unlawful government coercion. The plaintiffs did not "give away" their money; they were forced to surrender a small portion to free the rest of their locked funds.

3. The City's "Unclean Hands" Defense Fails the Legal Standard

The city argued that the drivers have "unclean hands" because they were caught speeding by the cameras. This defense fails on multiple fronts:
  • No Proven Guilt: Under Iowa law, you are not legally guilty of a traffic infraction just because a camera took a picture; the city must prove it in court. The city never did this.
  • The Clock Has Run Out: In Iowa, the city only has one year to prosecute a traffic camera infraction. The city is years past its deadline and cannot legally try to prove the plaintiffs were speeding now.
  • Wrong Type of Misconduct: The "unclean hands" defense requires proof of serious, bad-faith fraud or inequitable behavior related to the lawsuit itself (like trying to trick the court). A simple, unproven speeding allegation does not meet this high standard.

4. The City Cannot Blame the State

The city's final defense is that the State of Iowa designed the stressful offset system, not the city. This argument is weak because while the state built the system, it was the City of Des Moines that chose to unlawfully feed the plaintiffs' names into that system.

Summary

The city is in the difficult position of trying to convince a local judge to adopt a defense ("voluntary payment") that the Iowa Supreme Court has historically rejected, all to justify a collection practice that the Supreme Court has already labeled illegal. Therefore, the plaintiffs sit in a much stronger legal position as they wait for the final verdict.
If you want, I can explain what the next steps are once the judge issues a ruling, or explain how the class action members will be notified if the plaintiffs win. Let me know what you would like to know!


at

Iowa Supreme Court: Maury v. Des Mooines

On June 9, 2023, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that parts of the lawsuit could move forward, while officially throwing out other claims.

The case—officially titled Livingood v. City of Des Moines—centered on whether the city acted legally when collecting unpaid traffic camera fines by taking money directly from people's state tax refunds.

The Supreme Court split its decision into two main parts: [2]

What the Court Ruled in Favor of the City (Claims Dismissed)

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' complaints, deciding that the city's traffic camera system and collection methods were legal in these areas:

No Constitutional Violations: The court ruled that taking traffic fines from tax refunds did not violate anyone's constitutional right to due process.

  • Not an Illegal Tax: The automated traffic fines were not considered an unconstitutional or illegal property tax.

  • Statute of Limitations: The court decided that the one-year deadline to bring a municipal infraction to court did not apply here, because the city was doing out-of-court collection rather than starting a new lawsuit.

What the Court Ruled in Favor of the Plaintiffs (Claims Reopened)

The Supreme Court found that the local judge made a mistake by completely throwing out the case. They revived two major legal arguments and sent them back to the local court for a trial:

  • State Law Preemption: The court allowed the plaintiffs to argue that the city's collection method was "preempted" (overruled) by Iowa Code section 364.22, which usually requires a city to get a formal court judgment before taking someone's money.

  • Unjust Enrichment: The court reopened the claim that the city was unfairly holding onto money it had no legal right to collect.

Because the Supreme Court revived these specific points, the case was "remanded" (sent back) to the local Polk County court, which ultimately led to the full trial in June 2026.

at

Summary of Maury v. City of Des Moines

Phase 1: The Initial Lawsuit (2017)

  • February 2017: Attorney James Craig Larew filed the original petition against the City of Des Moines for declaratory judgment and damages.
  • Spring 2017: The plaintiffs asked for a temporary stop (injunction) against certain city actions, but Judge Arthur Gamble denied the request.
  • Late 2017: The plaintiffs changed and updated their formal complaint multiple times by filing amended petitions.

Phase 2: Discovery and the Long Pause (2018–2023)

  • Early 2018: Both sides began "discovery," which is the process of exchanging evidence, paperwork, and answering questions.
  • August 2018: Judge Gamble ordered a total pause (stay) on the case. The local court decided to wait until the Iowa Supreme Court finished deciding other related cases.
  • November 2019: After more than a year of waiting, the pause was lifted by Judge David Matthew Porter so the case could move forward.

Phase 3: The First Summary Judgment and Appeal (2020–2023)

  • Early 2020: Both sides asked the judge to rule on the case early without a trial by filing motions for summary judgment.
  • November 2021: Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled entirely in favor of the City of Des Moines, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.
  • March 2022: The plaintiffs officially appealed this decision to a higher court.
  • July 2023: The Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion that "affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded" the case. This meant parts of the case were officially sent back to the local county court to be looked at again.

Phase 4: Class Certification and The Trial (2023–2026)

  • July 2024: Judge Paul Scott approved the plaintiffs' request for "class certification". This legally turned the lawsuit into a class action representing a whole group of affected people.
  • Early 2025: Many individuals officially chose to opt out and exclude themselves from the group lawsuit.
  • June 2026: A full two-day bench trial was held before Judge Patrick Smith, leading to the current wait for a final verdict.

at

Maury v. City of Des Moines status

1. The Trial Has Taken Place

A non-jury bench trial was held over two days on June 8 and June 9, 2026, before Judge Patrick Smith. Both sides presented their evidence, and multiple items were officially marked as court exhibits.

2. Post-Trial Briefs Have Been Submitted

Following the trial, the defense (City of Des Moines) asked the court for permission to submit written arguments. Judge Smith granted the request and set a deadline of July 1, 2026.

  • On July 1, 2026, the plaintiffs' attorney (James Craig Larew) filed the Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Brief.
  • On the same day, the defense attorney (Luke Michael DeSmet) filed the Defendant's Post-Trial Brief.

3. Current Standing

As of the latest date on the printout (August 17, 2026), no new orders or final judgments have been entered since the briefs were submitted. The case is fully submitted, meaning the judge is currently reviewing all the trial evidence and post-trial arguments to write the final ruling.
If you want, I can help you summarize the history of the case leading up to the trial, or explain what specific laws and exhibits (like the Des Moines Municipal Code or Iowa Code) were brought up during the June trial. Let me know how you would like to proceed!



at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to get engaged with the Flock Safety debate in Iowa

In Iowa , the debate over public safety versus government surveillance has escalated rapidly. A major joint investigation by the University ...