Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-16-2022

Case Style:

Michael Wayne Klein v. Warren Steinkamp

Case Number: 21-3039

Judge: Collonton

Court: United States Court of Appeals for Eight Circuit on appeal from the Southern District of Iowa (Polk County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Des Moines Civil Rights Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.


Defendant's Attorney: John O. Haraldson, Gregory R. Brown

Description: Des Moines, Iowa personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a civil rights violation theory.

Michael Klein sued police officer Warren Steinkamp, now retired, after an
encounter that led to Klein’s arrest and a truncated prosecution.

he district court granted Steinkamp’s motion for summary judgment, and Klein appeals the dismissal
of his claims alleging unlawful seizure, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. We
conclude that the seizure and arrest claims were untimely, and that the malicious
prosecution claim fails on the merits.

* * * *

On June 19, 2017, Steinkamp and another police officer in Des Moines were
dispatched to an apartment building because the manager suspected two people of
trespassing and making unauthorized use of a key fob. When the officers arrived,
staff believed that the two suspects were in Klein’s apartment at the building. A staff
member knocked on the door, and Klein eventually opened it. Police saw two people
inside with Klein, asked for their identification, and entered the apartment through
the opened door.

The officers learned from the apartment manager that the owner of the missing
key fob was also missing an expensive purse. Officers asked Klein and the two
others to produce their key chains so that police could look for the missing key fob.
Officers also began to look for a purse.

Steinkamp picked up and opened a Crown Royal bag. According to his
testimony, Steinkamp felt that he had consent to open the bag, and he believed that
“people could put drugs” in such a bag. Steinkamp found two empty plastic baggies
inside. He thought the baggies indicated that there “could be drug usage going on”
in the apartment.

Steinkamp then noticed a lock box and opened it using a key on one of the key
chains that he had collected. He looked through the contents of the box and found
Klein’s identification card, a digital scale, and several bags of a white crystalline
substance that he suspected was methamphetamine. The officers then arrested Klein
on drug charges. A laboratory report later showed that the lock box contained more
than nine grams of methamphetamine.

Klein was charged in Iowa state court with two offenses: (1) possession of
more than five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, see Iowa Code
§ 124.401(1)(b)(7), and (2) failure to possess a tax stamp as a dealer of a controlled
substance, an offense that requires possession of seven grams or more of
methamphetamine. See id. §§ 453B.1(3), 453B.3, 453B.12.
Klein was arraigned on June 20, 2017, and he was detained pending trial. After
Klein moved to suppress evidence seized from the apartment, the county attorney
elected not to proceed with the case. The prosecution moved to dismiss the charges,
and the court granted a dismissal on November 7, 2017. Klein was released from jail
several days later.

Klein brought this action in Iowa district court on November 6, 2019, alleging
civil rights violations under federal and Iowa state law. Steinkamp removed the case
to federal court, and the district court exercised jurisdiction over claims arising under
both federal and state law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. The court ultimately
granted Steinkamp’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.
Summary judgment is warranted when there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Outcome: Summary judgment in favor of Defendant affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: