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!

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.

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.

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!