Murder victim’s family appeals dismissal of lawsuit against city police

Lawyers for the family of an Iowa woman murdered by her estranged husband say that had it not been for Bellevue police officers’ “deliberate refusal to enforce the law” and “arrest their buddy,” the woman would be alive today.

The family of the late Angela Prichard sued the Bellevue city police in 2024, arguing that despite Christopher Prichard’s well-established pattern of defying court orders and behaving in a threatening manner, city police repeatedly failed to enforce a no-contact order against him in the summer and fall of 2022.

Shortly before 8 a.m. on Oct. 8, 2022, the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call from the Mississippi Ridge Kennels in Bellevue, where Angela Prichard worked. When police arrived, Angela Prichard was found dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. She was 55 years old.

The next day, Christopher Prichard was located in a Jackson County residence with the murder weapon and ammunition still in his possession. He was later convicted of first-degree murder.

The lawsuit claimed the murder was the result of a “state-created danger” caused by the malfeasance, reckless or intentional behavior of the Bellevue Police Department. It accused city police officers of “showing favoritism toward Christopher Prichard,” and alleged that his friendly relationship with the police “enabled and fostered” his ability to murder his estranged wife.

In October, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, C.J. Williams, dismissed the family’s lawsuit, writing that he was “skeptical that more aggressive conduct by the officers would have changed anything.”

The judge said the position of the plaintiffs seemed to be that “had the officers arrested Christopher more often, it would have prevented Angela’s murder. Arguably, one could equally speculate that it was the officers’ arrest of Christopher for violating the no-contact order that angered him enough to kill Angela.”

David O’Brien, the Cedar Rapids attorney for Angela Prichard’s family, has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

In court filings, O’Brien says Christopher Prichard “avoided a lengthy jail sentence solely because of the defendants’ deliberate refusal to enforce the law … Had the defendants held (Christopher Prichard) accountable for even a fraction of his unlawful conduct — like they would any other defendant — he would have been incarcerated and Angela would be alive.”

O’Brien also says the city’s “repeated and intentional violations” of the Iowa Open Records Law and federal civil procedure involve efforts by the city to “intentionally conceal” information about the matter.

Plaintiffs point to inaction by city police

In a brief filed with the appellate court, O’Brien includes what he calls a “list of critical pleaded facts, entirely ignored by the defendants on appeal,” that should overcome any deficiencies in the case cited by Judge Williams.

Among those alleged facts:

— Christopher Prichard was out on bail for a felony offense, and his bail could have been revoked at any time for unlawful behavior, placing him behind bars at the time he murdered Angela Prichard.

— The police allowed Christopher Prichard “to get away with another Class C felony after he placed a tracking device in Angela’s car, a serious breach of (his) bail requirements that would have resulted in prolonged pre-trial incarceration and a ten-year prison sentence if convicted.”

— There were at least four documented violations of the temporary restraining order that were “ignored” by the police, any one of which could have led to bail revocation or a prison sentence.

— Nine days before the killing, then-Jackson County Attorney Sara Davenport wrote an email to the police advising them that Christopher Prichard had until 2 p.m. the next day to report to jail. “If he does not report I will be requesting a warrant,” she wrote. “I wanted all of you to be aware as I’m afraid he might try to do something tonight.” The next day, she wrote to the police, “Prichard did not show for (jail) and a warrant has been issued!” The police department’s failure to act on that warrant demonstrates the department’s “complete disregard for foreseeable harm,” O’Brien alleges.

In his appellate brief, O’Brien goes on to state that in the week before the murder, the police opted not to arrest Christopher Prichard but did find time to escort “a large vehicle” through town, chaperone a high school dance, make six traffic stops, perform funeral escorts and investigate complaints of a sick-looking raccoon and a growling dog.

It’s reasonable to infer from those actions, O’Brien argues, that city police officers “intentionally avoided arresting their buddy, Christopher Prichard, and there was not a competing resource allocation issue preventing them from doing so.”

City: Not liable for ‘murder committed by a third party’

In its brief to the appellate court, the city has argued that the plaintiffs’ assertion of due process violations fails because, as other courts have held, the state’s failure to protect an individual against violence at the hands of another person does not constitute a violation of due process rights.

Under prevailing law, the Constitution requires only that the government protect a private individual in two circumstances: when the individual is in government custody, or when the government, through its actions, has fostered a state-created danger.

The city’s lawyers note that while Judge Williams recognized allegations related to inaction by the police, there was no evidence to show the police “affirmatively acted” to put Angela Prichard at increased risk.

Lawyers for the city also argue that even if the police had arrested Christopher Prichard before the murder, “this does not guarantee that the tragic outcome of this case would have been any different,” noting that prosecutors or judges might have dismissed any case initiated by the officers or simply released Prichard from custody.

“Plaintiffs ask this court to hold the defendants liable for an intentional murder committed by a third party,” lawyers for the city argue in their brief to the appellate court. “Implied in this demand is that the defendants be held liable for factors well outside their control … This court should affirm the district court’s ruling.”

Court records indicate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to schedule oral arguments in the case.

This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.