Univeristy of Iowa Tailgating: The Enforcement Problems

Posted on August 20, 2010 by Benjamin Clark

The University of Iowa has recently adopted new policies related to tailgating during home football games.  They are being implemented to curb the drinking environment related to the tailgating atmosphere near the football stadium.  These policies include banning hard alcohol in all university lots, prohibiting drinking in all university lots an hour after the game has ended (recently defined as "when the stadium is substantially empty":  a definition that would make even non-lawyers question its implementation), clearing all lots 2 hours after the game has ended, and setting up sobriety checkpoints with the cooperation of local law enforcement.  While the spirit behind these policies is certainly well-intentioned, the implementation might be difficult.  Not only has the Johnson County Sheriff expressed dismay at the potential overcrowding of the county jail, but the legality of the sobriety checkpoints is questionable.

Iowa Code Section 321K.1 provides rules for vehicle checkpoints in Iowa.  The Code provides that vehicle roadblocks may only be conducted to enforce compliance with the law regarding any of the following:

a) The licensing of operators of motor vehicles

b) The registration of motor vehicles

c) The safety equipment required on motor vehicles

d) Compliance with provisions regarding transportation of wildlife.

The statute further provides other roadblock requirements, including safety, lighting, visibility, and a provision that the roadblock shall minimize the inconvenience of the motorists involved.  Further, the selection of motor vehicles cannot be arbitrary.  In other words, the roadblock cannot simply be in place for the purpose of checking the sobriety of drivers, the roadblock must be located in an area that is capable of handling the traffic from tens of thousands of fans, each car must be stopped (or some other non-arbitrary plan must be in place) and the area must be adequately staffed with officers.

Again, although these policies are probably a step in the right direction, their implementation and legality have yet to be determined.

 Go Hawks.

Tags: , , , , ,

Court of Appeals Chips Away at the "At-Will" Doctrine

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Liz Overton

Iowa adheres to the “at-will” employment doctrine, which simply states that an employee can be discharged for any lawful reason or no reason at all. A termination is wrongful when it violates public policy. In Berry v. Liberty Holdings, the Iowa Court of Appeals determined that Chapter 668 of the Iowa Code, which allows injured persons to bring a claim against the negligent individual, serves as the basis for a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

Berry was an employee for Liberty Holdings. The owner of Liberty Holdings also had an ownership interest in Premier Concrete Pumping. On his way home from work one day Berry was hit by a Premier Concrete Pumping truck and injured. Berry brought a personal injury suit against Premier to recover for his damages, which was settled. A few months later, Berry was terminated.

 

In the decision, the Court stated that “nothing could be more fundamental than the right of reasonable access to courts to protect those inalienable rights possessed by all persons and recognized by both the United States and Iowa Constitutions.” While the overall purpose of Chapter 668 is to establish a system for apportioning fault in negligence actions it also includes the state’s expressed policy that its citizens may seek legal redress for an injury caused by another’s negligence. If the Court chose not to expand the public policy exception to include Berry’s claim, it felt that employees may be forced into giving up certain well-recognized rights.

 

This is not the end of this case, however. Judge Vaitheswaran dissented stating that Chapter 668 does not define a right; therefore, cannot be the basis for the proposed public policy exception. Liberty Holdings may appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa. The Supreme Court of Iowa may agree with Judge Vaitheswaran.  

 

Further, while Berry has won this battle, he still must prove that he was terminated because he filed a claim against Premier before he can recover. This opinion contained no facts that would suggest one way or another whether Berry’s claim will be successful.  It will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

Tags: , , ,