Proposal for criminal groping gets pushback from Iowa lawmakers

CEDAR RAPIDS — A proposed bill to close a significant gap in a state assault law by enhancing penalties for someone groping another’s intimate areas has hit a roadblock with lawmakers, leaving prosecutors scratching their heads as to why this bill has received so much pushback.

The Gazette talked with Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks, a legislative committee member of the Iowa County Attorneys Association. He proposed this change a few years ago, but it wasn’t made a priority until this year.

  Buy Photo

Q: What is the original bill proposed by the association?

A: The proposed bill was meant to address a substantial gap in the law in regards to an assault. The current law of groping a person in intimate areas of the body — buttocks, breast, groin — is treated as a simple misdemeanor if there’s no injury or it’s not intended to lead into an actual sexual abuse.

The proposed law would be assault by criminal groping, which would be a serious misdemeanor and the carry up to one year in jail. Now, that doesn’t mean prosecutors would be seeking 365 days in jail for those offenses. We would be looking for something in between a minimum fine and one year in jail, but this would give some teeth in punishment. It would give offenders some incentive to seek treatment or deter conduct by placing them on probation.

Q: What is the current penalty for this kind of assault?

A: A simple assault, which carries up to 30 days in jail, but if it’s not tagged by a prosecutor as requiring jail time, it could go through without the opportunity to request it — meaning they could pay a fine and serve no jail time. With a simple, there is also no opportunity for probation or treatment to address more serious behavior, if needed.

Q: What led to you proposing this bill? Was it a specific case?

A: I proposed it through the association three or four years ago based on my many years of experience seeing these cases referred to the office by law enforcement and realizing we can only charge as a simple assault.

This is a significant problem because of the trauma and seriousness, especially the psychological effect for the victims. Assault by groping, in our opinion, should be treated more seriously as a push or shove. Or on a higher level than a minor shoplifting offense.

Q: Do you have any idea how many of these cases come through or are referred each year?

A: It happens very frequently. I don’t have numbers because this offense isn’t a category of crime with its own definition that we can track, but in talking with other county attorneys across the state, we all were experiencing our inability to hold offenders accountable who commit these types of assaults. Basically, the whole room (of prosecutors on the committee) nodded in agreement that we needed to do something to increase penalties for this type of behavior. That’s how it became a priority for the association this year.

When victims hear about this (being only a simple assault) and that we are handcuffed by the law to charge a higher penalty, they’re shocked.

  Buy Photo

Q: Did you think there would be a problem or opposition to passing it or getting legislators on board to support it?

A: No. I thought it would be a no-brainer. Obviously, we would want to treat an assault the involves groping a woman’s breast or buttocks in an offensive way more seriously and say there should be an increased penalty.

On an individual level when I’ve talked to people, particularly woman, about this, sadly nearly all of them have experience this type of offense or know somebody who has and are fully supportive of this. Across the board.

Q: What were the issues when Senate Study Bill 1004 and House Study Bill 12 were proposed in subcommittees?

A: It ran into an immediate roadblock in the House and was tabled — no immediate action taken because of their concerns. One of the legislators claimed that this would result in “horseplay” being prosecuted — like a congratulatory tap on the rear end for a good shot during a game, and it would end up being potentially being a sex offense, which couldn’t be more misguided and wrong. Somehow (they thought) this law would encompass innocuous behavior but what they failed to realize is the obvious — it’s a bill for assault by criminal groping. An assault done with intent to cause pain or injury or be offensive to the recipient. The sports incidents wouldn’t make it past law enforcement. First of all, they wouldn’t take a report. And prosecutors wouldn’t file charges for it.

Q: Other concerns?

A: Some thought this conduct was already covered in the code but that’s the problem. It falls under simple assault. It’s no different than if someone lifted up a fist, threatening to punch another, which is different than groping — touching someone. This offense isn’t adequately covered in the code.

Q: Wasn’t there some pushback because this groping offense could trigger sex offender registry requirement?

A: That’s usually a hot-button issue. They were concerned that if someone does something wrong at a young age, they could be tagged as a sex offender for the rest of their lives. We addressed that in the original bill and there would have to be a separate finding that the groping had a sexual motive in order for the registry to apply.

Q: Were the lawmakers opposed to it women, men, both?

A: On the House subcommittee, there were three men. There was one legislator on the committee, Rep. Judd Lawler, R-District 91, who has been willing to work with us on amending the bill. He has suggested changing the crime to the harassment code as second-degree harassment, a serious misdemeanor. The same up to a year in jail penalty. We appreciate that and are open to amendments.

Q: Did it pass the Senate subcommittee?

A: Yes. But there are concerns that it needs to be amended before it continues. Potentially, we’ve hit a wall, so there has to be some interest from the Legislature and the community. This is kind of the call to action part — call your legislators and say this deserves a committee hearing. I personally believe if it gets to the floor, it will pass. On its face, it’s just so logical. This has required more education of the legislators than I would have thought.

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com