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!
