In the Matter of Honorable Daniel Lee BLOCK, Associate Juvenile Judge of the First Judicial District

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 12–0256
Filed June 22, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF HONORABLE DANIEL LEE BLOCK,
Associate Juvenile Judge of the First Judicial District.
On application of the Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications.
Commission on judicial qualifications filed an application to
discipline a judicial officer. APPLICATION GRANTED; JUDICIAL
OFFICER REPRIMANDED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Scott D. Brown and
Kevin R. Cmelik, Assistant Attorneys General, for complainant.
Carter J. Stevens of Roberts, Stevens, Prendergast & Guthrie,
P.L.L.C., Waterloo, for respondent.
2
CADY, Chief Justice.
The Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed an
application for imposition of discipline against an associate juvenile court
judge for conduct that resulted in his arrest for the crime of operating
while intoxicated, first offense. The Commission found the judicial officer
violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended he be
publicly reprimanded. We find the judge violated the Code of Judicial
Conduct and grant the application. We agree the appropriate discipline
for the unethical conduct in this matter is a reprimand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Daniel Block is an Iowa associate juvenile court judge. He is forty-
eight years old and lives in Cedar Falls. He is married and has three
children. Judge Block was admitted to the practice of law in Iowa in
1989, after graduating from Creighton Law School. He is active in his
profession and his community. Judge Block is dedicated in his work and
has maintained a good reputation as a judge. He has served the state as
a juvenile court judge for fourteen years.
On November 27, 2010, Judge Block was arrested for operating
while intoxicated, first offense. He had attended an evening charity event
in Webster City and was driving in his vehicle from the event to the
house of a friend where he had planned to stay overnight. His friend was
a passenger in the vehicle. Judge Block consumed beer and alcoholic
drinks prior to and during the charity event. He was stopped by a law
enforcement officer for speeding and erratic driving. An open can of beer
and a glass containing whiskey were discovered in the vehicle. Judge
Block submitted to a breath test, which revealed an alcohol
concentration level of .135. He was jailed and released the following
3
morning after posting bond. The judge was polite throughout the
process and never attempted to use his position to alter the outcome.
The arrest received extensive coverage by the local media. Judge
Block promptly informed the chief judge of the First Judicial District of
the incident and understood he would inform the executive secretary of
the Commission on Judicial Qualifications of the incident. He also
promptly entered a plea of guilty to the charge of operating while
intoxicated, first offense, and was granted a deferred judgment. The
prompt resolution of the matter confined the media coverage to a brief
period of time. A substance abuse evaluation subsequently revealed that
Judge Block exhibited traits of a substance dependence disorder. He is a
social drinker, but has tendencies to be a risk taker. He attended and
completed a driving-under-intoxication education class.
On March 29, 2011, the Commission on Judicial Qualifications
charged Judge Block with a substantial violation of Canon 1 of the Iowa
Code of Judicial Conduct, including rule 51:1.1 and rule 51:1.2. He was
also charged with engaging in conduct that brings the judicial office into
disrepute in violation of Iowa Code section 602.2106(3)(b) (2011). Judge
Block admitted the charges against him, and the matter proceeded to a
hearing before the Commission. 1
Judge Block testified at the Commission hearing. He was contrite
and honest, accepted responsibility for his actions, and acknowledged
his conduct gave the judiciary a “black eye.” Following the hearing, the
Commission filed an application with this court to discipline Judge
1The Commission on Judicial Qualifications is composed of seven members. Six
were present for the hearing. At least four members must be present to conduct
Commission business and to decide whether to submit a complaint to the supreme
court. Iowa Code § 602.2103.
4
Block. See Iowa Code § 602.2106. 2 The Commission found the judge
violated Canon 1, as well as rule 51:1.1 and rule 51:1.2. It
recommended he receive a public reprimand.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
“Our standard of review of a recommendation of judicial discipline
by the commission on judicial qualifications is de novo.” In re
McCormick, 639 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 2002). Ethical violations are
required to be established by a convincing preponderance of the
evidence. Id.
III. Violation.
The Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct contains four canons, each
accompanied by numerous rules that more specifically define the
conduct prohibited by the canons. Both the canons and the rules within
each canon can give rise to discipline.
Canon 1 addresses the need for judges to preserve the crown
jewels of the judiciary—independence, integrity, and impartiality—and
directs judges to uphold the fundamental qualities of judging by avoiding
impropriety. 3 See William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme
Ct., Keynote Address at the Washington College of Law of the American
University Symposium: The Future of the Federal Courts (April 9, 1996),
in 46 Am. U. L. Rev. 263, 274 (1996) (indicating an independent judiciary
is “one of the crown jewels of our system of government today”). The
canon does not prescribe the nature or scope of an “impropriety” that
2Weact on an application from the Commission on Judicial Qualifications in the
same manner as appeals in cases subject to expedited time requirements. Iowa R. App.
P. 6.902.
3Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, provides, “A judge shall uphold and
promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
5
would constitute a violation, but the accompanying rules help shed some
light. Rule 51:1.1 requires judges to “comply with the law.” Rule 51:1.2
requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary” and to “avoid impropriety.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the
canon not only captures conduct that violates the law, but also includes
conduct that may not violate the law but nevertheless diminishes public
confidence in the judiciary. It also includes conduct of a judge both on
and off the bench. Together the canon and its accompanying rules
emphasize that the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary are preserved when judges avoid impropriety.
While rule 51:1.1 requires judges to comply with the law, not all
noncompliance with the law would violate the rule. Iowa Code section
602.2106(3)(b) authorizes discipline for a violation of the canons of
judicial ethics only when the violation is “substantial.” If the violation of
the law is not the type that would diminish public confidence in the
judiciary, it could not serve as a basis for discipline.
We have previously imposed discipline against a judge for
operating a vehicle while intoxicated. See In re Weaver, 691 N.W.2d 725,
725 (Iowa 2004). While we have not declared the criminal offense of
operating while intoxicated, first offense, to be a per se violation of Canon
1 and the accompanying rules, other courts generally agree that judges
convicted of driving under the influence violate the code of judicial
conduct. See Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Thomas, 722
So. 2d 629, 630 (Miss. 1998) (citing cases indicating that judges arrested
for or convicted of driving while under the influence violate the code of
judicial conduct). Nevertheless, our task in this case is to determine
whether the conduct of the judge amounted to a substantial violation of
6
the code of judicial conduct; and in doing so, we must consider the
impact of the conduct as a whole, not just the nature of the resulting
criminal conviction, on the indispensable public confidence of the
judiciary.
Judge Block operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation
of Iowa Code section 321J.2. His blood alcohol level was .135. The law
does not permit a person to operate a vehicle in Iowa with a blood alcohol
level of .08 or more. Judge Block also allowed open containers of
alcoholic beverages in his vehicle. He was speeding just prior to his
arrest and was driving in an erratic manner. This conduct, as a whole,
was improper and unacceptable for a judge. The crime was serious. The
conduct was substantial. Additionally, the public reaction to the news of
the conduct likely diminished its confidence in the integrity, and perhaps
even the impartiality, of the judiciary. While the incident appeared to
have been isolated and the judge responded to his misstep with the
integrity and character befitting the profession, the totality of the
conduct prior to the arrest, including the degree of intoxication, erratic
driving, and open containers of alcoholic beverages was enough to
adversely impact the public confidence in the judiciary. We find Judge
Block violated Canon 1 and rules 51:1.1 and 51:1.2. 4
4It is unnecessary to consider if Judge Block also violated Iowa Code section
602.2106(3)(b) by engaging in conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute. In
Iowa, grounds for judicial discipline are not only limited to a violation of the canons of
judicial conduct, but are also defined by statute to include “conduct which brings
judicial office into disrepute.” Iowa Code § 602.2106(3)(b). Judge Block was originally
charged with conduct that brings the office into disrepute, but the Commission made
no separate finding on this charge. We review the Commission application de novo but,
like the Commission, find it unnecessary to make a finding on additional statutory
grounds once we have found the conduct constituted a substantial violation of Canon 1.
7
IV. Discipline.
The main purpose of judicial discipline is to restore public
confidence in the judicial system and its judges. In re Gerard, 631
N.W.2d 271, 280 (Iowa 2001). Discipline is also imposed to protect the
public and to deter other judges from engaging in unethical conduct. Id.
We have identified numerous factors to consider in determining the
appropriate discipline in each case. Id. These factors are
1. whether the misconduct is isolated or a pattern of
misconduct;
2. the nature, extent, and frequency of the acts of
misconduct;
3. whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the
courtroom;
4. whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s
official capacity or in his or her private life;
5. whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized
the misconduct;
6. whether the judge has made an effort to change or
modify his or her conduct;
7. the length of service on the bench;
8. whether there have been any prior complaints;
9. the effect of the misconduct upon the integrity of
and respect for the judiciary; and
10. the extent to which the judge exploited the judicial
office to satisfy personal interests.
See In re McCormick, 639 N.W.2d at 16. Generally, each factor can be an
aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
We have imposed a public reprimand in the past as discipline for a
judge who was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence,
first offense. In re Weaver, 691 N.W.2d at 725. This form of discipline is
in line with the discipline normally imposed in other jurisdictions for
similar conduct. See In re Hanley, 867 N.E.2d 157, 158 (Ind. 2007)
(imposing reprimand); In re D’Ambrosio, 723 A.2d 943, 943 (N.J. 1999)
8
(reprimanding retired judge); In re Resnick, 842 N.E.2d 31, 32 (Ohio
2005) (imposing public reprimand); In re Binkoski, 515 S.E.2d 828, 831
(W. Va. 1999) (imposing public censure). An application of the factors to
the circumstances of this case would not call for more serious discipline
than a reprimand.
Judge Block asks that we consider a private reprimand. He points
out that most of the factors used to determine the nature of the
discipline to result from a violation mitigate in favor of a mild sanction.
Generally, we agree. See In re Brown, 625 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Mich. 2000)
(explaining how the various factors weigh to aggravate or mitigate
discipline). A private reprimand, however, is not an available form of
discipline once we grant an application submitted to us by the
Commission. See Iowa Code § 602.2106(4). Once we grant an
application in whole or in part, we are required to issue a decree. 5 This
decree is made public. Accordingly, having found Judge Block
committed a substantial violation of Canon 1 of our judicial ethics, and
violated rules 51:1.1 and 51:1.2, we conclude he should be reprimanded
for his conduct as a part of this decree.
V. Conclusion.
We find Judge Daniel Block violated Canon 1 of the Iowa Code of
Judicial Conduct as well as rules 51:1.1 and 51:1.2. We reprimand
Judge Block for his conduct.
5The Commission is authorized to take action similar to a private admonition in
response to a complaint. It may informally dispose of a complaint by requesting a
conference with the judge. Iowa Ct. Rs. 52.10(8), 52.11(5). It may also issue a private
letter of caution and warning to a judge when it finds the judge’s conduct was
questionable, but did not amount to misconduct or warrant the imposition of formal
discipline. Iowa Ct. R. 52.26. In this case, the Commission chose to file an application
for formal discipline instead of privately disposing of the complaint.
9
APPLICATION GRANTED; JUDICIAL OFFICER REPRIMANDED.
All justices concur except Zager, J., who takes no part.