Iowa Man Sues City After Repeated Arrests for Criticizing Police at Council Meetings

An Iowa man detained last year during a council meeting has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Newton, its mayor, and the chief of Newton's police department, claiming that the arrest violated his basic civil rights.

Noah Petersen's civil action against Newton argues that his First, Fourth, and 14th Amendment rights were trampled upon when the police chief handcuffed him during the city council's Oct. 2, 2022, meeting.

During the public commentary period, Petersen criticized his hometown police department and urged the council to "defund" them.

Before he was taken away from the podium, Petersen — reacting to the wrongful arrest of a college football player — said of the police, "They are a violent, civil and human rights–violating organization who do not make your community safer. They are also pro–domestic abuse because they are currently employing a domestic abuser and choosing not to release the records about that domestic abuser."

He was cut off from finishing his statement, and the chief booked him.

Petersen's lawsuit alleges that the mayor and the police chief "had Noah arrested, jailed, strip-searched, and criminally prosecuted simply because they didn't like what Noah had to say. This suit is filed to vindicate the fundamental right to criticize the government without fear of retaliation and to ensure the constitutional accountability of all government officials."

While Petersen was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct, the charges were later dropped by a judge, who also deemed the city ordinance cited in Petersen's arrest unconstitutional.

He was arrested again at the Oct. 24, 2022, meeting, when he tried finishing his original statement about the Newton Police.

The 56-page lawsuit seeks attorney's fees and compensatory and punitive damages but lists only $1 as the sought amount. Moreover, Petersen wants formal acknowledgments from the city that it violated his rights and that his arrests were tantamount to unlawful seizure.

The suit also requests "an order permanently enjoining Defendants from restraining any speech like Noah’s speech, or retaliating against any speaker like Noah, based on ... retaliatory animus or from taking enforcement actions against the speaker that they would not take against others similarly situated who were not engaged in like political activity."