under circumstances where most busy people find it preferable to shut up and pay rather than scream and fight these plaintiffs decided to stand up scream and fight they have a particular burden to do so in iowa where it is a unique among all states and having a t enforcement on an interstate highway before having the opportunity to explore their claims however and obtain discovery in their case these plaintiffs were dismissed out of court in that way this case is largely about parallel rights of access to the courts first plaintiffs below is recipients of these notices of violation were told to go to an administrative hearing process that didn't provide any of the protections of a court of law including an impartial judicial fact finder will counsel all administrative agencies actions appealable to the courts in iowa by practice and by a specific statute they are absolutely however the lack of due process on a lower level if you don't have due process from the beginning it doesn't negate even the right to appeal that decision the excuse me you still were forced to go through a process where you felt that you were asserting your rights and that you had some impartial decision maker and it's discouraging if one party takes the time to think that they're going through a good procedurally significant process and then to be told that by an administrative hearing officer with no authority under the statute but who is not appointed by anyone with the political  responsibility to then be told by them that they have ordered under a preponderance of the evidence which is a different standard than that they would consider motions which is not at all true what's your best us supreme court case on this what an arguably unfair or not sufficiently impartial ministration hearing is a free standing due process federal due process violation if there is they know it will review with full due process in the state court two things on that so the u s supreme court decision i don't have an opinion exactly on that on that point yet but on related to that point the ward v monroe bill decision that holds that lack of due process at a lower level even the right to appeal does not then negate the lack of due process at that lower level this that it does the money goes to the decision maker yes yes yes does the money go to the administrative or decision maker in this case it does not go to the administrative law decision maker but we in fact would argue it is a go to disagree to a general revenue special for some of those money really go it goes to the police department in fact and so we argue that it's actually a police officer who can make the final decision at these and ministry of hearings they can overrule the decision of the administrative hearing officer and we've had in later cases direct evidence of that but we did assert that in the di agree with us on that that that was in a certain fact independent police department but this is not simply the police department portion of the general revenues my understanding based only on newspaper accounts that it went made three million over the course and it seems that citations have been increasing so we're talking tens of millions of dollars and your underlying argument is more equitable legal political  part a political question but i think that the procedural due process factors laid out by matthews in fact anticipate this kind of balancing and it's a flexible standard in order for the law to apply an equitable approach here some  procedural due process and matthews yeah and so saying looking at the risk and and the way you describe it is exactly the problem it's a fair amount of money but you know more procedural new process and you really want because it's expensive and you want you talking about we want the process that in fact guaranteed by the iowa code which is direct access to the district court and cedar rapids while it may have the ability to set up administrative hearings has defined in its own code that a violation of an ordinance is a municipal infraction and that i have a code section three sixty four twenty two applies and i will code section three sixty four twenty two subsection six requires that a municipal infraction be the time frame you know how tickets often work at this level at this level are prosecutorial review and somebody is review and somebody is reviewed well i'm i'm reading in what the the city itself requires because they're citing that provision in their own definitional section in their municipal code section one point one two they define a municipal violation of an ordinance as a municipal infraction subject to those provisions and so those provisions the i was supreme court has already held that those provisions apply to a t in its decision it said that the clear satisfactory and convincing standard is what applies to a t d and the fact that in these in ministries of hearings they are applying the preponderance most review of small claims is de novo you know that most states that have a small claims there's usually a procedure for a de novo review some way is that what applies here or not absolutely we think that's exactly the process of should be provided direct access to small claims and then a dyno review in the iowa district court and while i know the defendants have often stated that then you automatically have the right to appeal just like any other person in iowa in fact you have to apply for no those are part part procedural due process just generally the process required is the process that set up by the statute and then also in the balancing factors and then also a preemption argument which the federal court would look to state law for what it raise concerns for us with the administrative board this hearing officer that is appointed often based on a friendship relationship with the police officer is that you're you're going down into a private forum you're not outside people are not allowed to be in there you're not allowed to present evidence you're not allowed to have a witness the use administrat well but they are judges that have been trained in the law and that understand legal arguments and which provides a great level of comfort for them issuing orders as opposed to a volunteer friend of the police that sitting in the basement of the police department where you come in with an armed officer in there and you're not allowed to present any witnesses you tell your story and then in what appears from the outside a very arbitrary  first level of review who has a contingent interest in every single citation issued for every citation that is issued and paid they receive twenty five dollars which is thirty percent of the entire fine so someone is sitting in a room that we don't know  using the delegated police powers of the city to say ok this i think i'm going to issue this ticket there may be standards that apply but before the police officer ever even reviews and spends a few seconds literally clicking approve or reject issue tickets to everyone money with cameras the cameras appears to violate the traffic the traffic around you would have less of an unlawful delegation of police power problem but you would still have a procedural due process problem if you're forced to raise the delegation issue in this case is that a clean you're carrying yes we did raise it below your in a district court did not decide it we raised it in conjunction with our unjust enrichment claim and so and it was briefed by the parties also on appeal the other distinction i wanted to make finally sorry with the traffic court with a police officer standing there is that the police officer even if they presented evidence they would be more in the assistance of the prosecutorial function but they wouldn't also be the judge and the jury in a regular traffic ticket in court as opposed to this administrative hearing where the police officer can in fact over hughes have our freestanding we do not challenge the merits of that decision so whoever you did in the district court right but we are not challenging that on appeal we are based on a perceived threat to him reserving that to your view of the world but now let me let me take a case with respect to standing you remember you no i do not you read it you look for is it fair to say there's nothing in the world like that i did what i found that i thought was helpful was the discretionary review that's a political two declaratory judgment actions which is what  it would be difficult for judicial economy it seems as if it either one should remain and all or or not we have said court during the court goes on and the side of the case the merits of the cla want that that ridiculous unnecessary action of what you're that's why we asked in the alternative that since it's a discretionary review of a declaratory judgment that we'd be remanded the entire case to the i would just to court because we were judicial efficiency yes the official now that the federal courts have completely decided the claims and they've all been briefed and argued door for a federal appellate court to send the whole thing back from scratch to an unfortunate state trial court judge well it could be considered equitable given that plaintiffs were the ones who asserted the jurisdiction of the federal court in in the first instance and so to then remove the case and argue that we do not have standing in federal city agrees with the district court's ruling in that regard right now the district court then lacked article three jurisdiction over those two play why wasn't there why why at a minimum didn't they have to be intertwined with the federal on time about the federal claim she didn't address that she if she if she's right about standing as to some button that some but not all plaintiff should not be what does the constitution and the supreme court precedents require her to do with respect to the lamps that have no standing at the end of the case your honor the why doesn't she have to revamp or at least dismissed without prejudice now what happens to the federal life of the people who had no right to be in federal court well in this particular case if they aren't there's no jurisdiction to dismiss them on the merits don't you have to either much they had standing the court had they had to have at least a preliminary version of standing in order for the court to determine standing i mean they had entry to the courthouse always have jurisdiction to determine  and i'm not i am not aware your honor of any case that dictates one way or the other whether it was error for her not to enter an order but do know that no request was made post judgment that those two as you know they found they found several of their claims on the i would apartment of transportation condemning how you're doing this his specific way in a specific place should the district court of have dismissed those or those cla not ripe at all should be done into rightness here if i may ask for clarification or question are you asking whether the district court should have dismissed the claims to the extent they were were relying on that would have been a correct exercise of the district court authority as i best understand the second amended complaint the given some of the timing involved and i'm risking going beyond the pleadings at this point but because of the question i will take that risk the timing involved in the dispute between the city of cedar rapids and by the way several cities and the department of transportation is began at the level of the administrative agency in question and the parties are now under just judicial review and in that for due process and also as a an expression of why substantive due process has been violated because it should shock the conscience and judicial notions of fairness that the city would continue to operate its a t e program even while the d o t has made a pronouncement and in that regard what's really important about the district court are not a replacement for constitutional analysis of due process requirements for equal protection argument i hope i have addressed do they have a claim that's really just about the d o t argument or not the ordinance itself to which all notices a violation very expressively refer and incorporate provides fundamentally two avenues and it's stated  as such in sixty one point one thirty eight one is to appear before an administrative official and come back to that in a moment if allowed and the other is to request that in lieu of and that's pretty important language in lieu of the administrative hearing so it really is not a genuine statement to say that  one avenue more fully it also in there there are several forms of notice issued but the initial notice of violation is the most important but you're dealing with laypeople here so how does this how does this pas to contest by administrative hearing it is recommended and that's a direct quote that you review the city ordinance so a link to t explicit you have yours certainly the system that the app ellie's don't contend that in every finer point we couldn't do better but for purposes of passing muster under the due process and other constitutional analyses we maintain that the ordinance itself is very clear as district court judge reed agreed  there is in fact there's no allegation in the complaint that any of the confusion actually prevented anyone from contesting in one form or another now for the   any government action that imposes a consequence council does each notice a violation have the alternatively sentence that has the in lieu of phrase entered or not the notice in the initial notice itself does not tell you why you keep saying initial notice i thought some notice a violation had the alternative in the loo of tell me is there some notices just tell me if i'm right or wrong i put some notice so in in conducting your deniable review i would like to offer to you a couple of clarifications based on the exchange between your honour's and ms d low if i may the it does go to this last point there always is direct access to the court as a matter of fact there's in ohio and this is a case i have with me we didn't cite it in the brief but if i may ask the indulgence it's permissive even where the ordinance doesn't make reference to access to the court it still passes constitutional muster that as a matter of law it is there to the extent that individuals argue they have somehow been misled  submit that there are a number of ways listed in the notice of violation to obtain and additional information so it's not reasonable for any individual overall structure of this ordinance and this program the administrative hearing is an option it's on top of the judicial relief always available as a matter of law and it is it's not accurate to say that the individuals do not have direct access they do have direct access at all point well i know what you're referring to the i would ministry to proceed to act administrative review and then is completely distinct separable freestanding from the municipal infraction available to an individual who w administrative agencies is a defined term of art under the iowa administrative procedures act and there are a number of purely local bodies that are not subject to i will quote chapter seventeen and so you're saying that iowa code that i was talking the other side about does not apply to this case yes in fact in point of fact one significant exception would be our civil rights commission and so even decisions by our local civil rights commission are not subject to the traditional have nothing  the in lieu of language is the language set forth in the ordinance that says you may either have an administrative hearing or you may in lieu of that demand that the city issue a muni infraction that municipal infraction is a matter of local ordinance pursuant to three sixty four point twenty two of the i was cold so it is very much a judicial proceeding independent of freestanding from the administrative process and really the administrative process is not altogether unlike the opportunity that an individual has at the time of a traffic stop to say wait a minute i was on the i was on my way to the hospital i you know the sorts of intercessions that of an individual might be from the police officer and that is why on occasion a police officer even though a hearing officer may hold or sustain at the administrative level a police off sir will reverse there is no situation by the very structure  local ordinance whereby a police officer can over can overrule a determination by hearing officer who has said i'm throwing out the citation it's done at that point no police officer can overturn that under the terms of the ordinance i have one last irrelevant question have the members of the city council of cedar rapids survived an election since they have enacted this ordinance forth in this complaint are of a policy nature and whether at pellant agree or disagree with the methods the eighty program uses it uses  time tested process the standard radar and uses photographic evidence to proceed thank you very much  you know she has two minutes for me thank you for these court just ending on a quick point on the election of the city council it's our position that most if not the vast majority of the two these tickets go to out of city if not out of state individuals  nine non elect doors exactly which is part of the the problem of the speed trap in addition i wanted to read some of the language from the notice of violation further to the points made you can see the success so after describing this speed limit and the consequences for failing to pay the notice a violation also reads in addition you may be subject to formal collection procedures including but not limited to being reported to a credit reporting agency and a civil lawsuit that civil lawsuit of course is the reference to the municipal infraction which is the due process to which they're actually entitled but it's used as a threat in this instance next on the back you are only told that you have a right to contest this violation in person in a administrative hearing or by mail if you reside outside the state of iowa there are some references to other documents it's our position that the f a q's provided give the exact same notice it's in our appendix and they say you have the right to an administrative hearing this issue finally we the reader not find the ordinance to be entirely clear even to an attorney let alone a lay person in order to read those as alternatives though the way the