Federal Judge: Newton Officials Liable After Arresting Critic Twice — Ruling Denies Qualified Immunity

Noah Petersen says he was exercising his right to free speech when he criticized the Newton, Iowa, police department during the public-comment period at city council meetings in October 2022. Instead, Mayor Michael Hansen and Police Chief Rob Burdess ordered his removal and had him arrested twice on disorderly-conduct charges.

Judge Rules Arrests Violated Constitutional Rights

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie M. Rose ruled that both arrests violated Petersen's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In Petersen v. Newton, Judge Rose found the officials used their authority to suppress criticism rather than to preserve meeting decorum and concluded the city ratified that misconduct.

"Petersen's arrests were the deliberate product of officials who mistook their authority to maintain order for a license to suppress criticism — and of a city that ratified their conduct rather than correct it," Judge Rose wrote.

What Happened At The Meetings

At a October 3, 2022, council meeting Petersen used his allotted three minutes to criticize the police department, urge the city to "defund" the department, and say the department was "pro–domestic abuse" for retaining an officer subject to a civil restraining order. Mayor Hansen interrupted, declared him 'out of order' under a city rule barring 'derogatory statements,' and ordered him removed. Chief Burdess handcuffed and arrested Petersen; he was booked, strip-searched, and held until bail was posted.

Three weeks later, at a second meeting, Petersen again criticized local policing and — referring to his earlier arrest — called the mayor and the police chief 'the top two fascists in this town.' Hansen cut him off, suspended the meeting, and Petersen was arrested a second time as he left.

Court Findings: No Probable Cause, Viewpoint Discrimination, No Defamation

Judge Rose found that:

• Petersen was lawfully recognized and speaking within his allotted time, and he did not use profanity, make threats, or otherwise behave disruptively.
• The disorderly-conduct statute did not apply to his calm, critical speech, and the arrests were motivated by the content of his remarks rather than legitimate decorum concerns.
• Allegations that Petersen was defamatory were unfounded: his reference to an officer as a 'domestic abuser' was substantially true given an undisputed civil no-contact order, and calling officials 'fascists' was political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment.

The court emphasized that the rule banning 'derogatory statements' had been applied selectively: other speakers who sharply criticized city inspectors were not arrested, and Hansen admitted that praising the police would not have violated the rule. That selective enforcement, the judge concluded, amounted to forbidden viewpoint discrimination and violated equal-protection principles.

Qualified Immunity Denied

Because the constitutional principles at issue — the right to criticize government officials, the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination, and the ban on retaliation for protected speech — were long established by October 2022, Judge Rose ruled Hansen and Burdess could not claim qualified immunity. The Fourth Amendment claim failed for the same reasons: the arrests lacked probable cause and therefore were unreasonable seizures.

Procedural Outcome And Reaction

A Jasper County judge previously acquitted Petersen on the first disorderly-conduct charge on February 1, 2023; the city later dropped the second charge. The Institute for Justice represented Petersen and hailed the ruling as a victory for government accountability. Petersen said the decision reaffirms that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they step up to a microphone.

This ruling reinforces that public-comment periods cannot be turned into 'praise-only' forums and that officials may not weaponize arrests to silence critics.