Federal Lawsuit Over 2023 Wagler Arrests Enters New Stage
Comments made during the September 17 Henry County Board of Supervisors meeting prompted KILJ to take a closer look at several lawsuits currently involving the county.
Supervisor Steve Detrick referenced the pending litigation during the meeting. KILJ’s review found new developments in the federal lawsuit arising from the 2023 searches and arrests involving the Wagler family and their Wayland business, Outdoor Tradition Company.
Henry County has asked the federal court to rule in its favor on the remaining claims without a trial. According to the Waglers’ brief supporting their request to amend the lawsuit, the county filed its motion for summary judgment August 25.
Meanwhile, the Waglers are asking the judge for permission to add a new claim alleging that the county failed to properly train and supervise sheriff’s deputies.
The court has not ruled on either request.
How the case began
The lawsuit was filed by Curtis, Lori, Owen and Emma Wagler, along with a minor identified in court documents as A.W.
The defendants include Henry County, Sheriff Rich McNamee, Deputy Carlos Lopez, Deputy Chad Doak, jailer Zach White and unidentified defendants.
According to the law-enforcement defendants’ brief seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, the case began with a Henry County Sheriff’s Office investigation into customer complaints alleging that Outdoor Tradition had accepted payments but failed to deliver certain products. The defendants say that investigation lasted at least seven months.
On April 18, 2023, Lopez applied for a warrant to search the Waglers’ home and business. The warrant authorized officers to search Curtis, Lori and Owen and seize business records, electronic devices, electronically stored information, lockboxes, safes and currency.
Assistant Henry County Attorney Blake Vierra signed the application, and Magistrate Timothy Liechty approved the warrant.
The Waglers’ original complaint alleges Lopez and approximately seven other armed officers executed the warrant April 21, 2023. Curtis, Lori and Owen were taken to the Henry County Sheriff’s Office and arrested on multiple felony charges. They appeared before a judge and were released later that day without posting bail.
The Waglers allege the arrests were made before deputies had processed or analyzed the evidence seized during the searches.
Their complaint quotes then Henry County Attorney Darin Stater as saying his office had not been consulted before the arrests and was left to evaluate 30 potential felony charges without an investigative report.
The complaint also alleges officers searched bookbags belonging to Emma and A.W., seized their money and took A.W.’s laptop. The family says officers damaged portions of the home and business while executing the warrant.
Curtis Wagler alleges White subjected him to two body-cavity searches while he was being processed at the jail.
The family further alleges Lopez contacted customers and accused the Waglers of scamming and defrauding them. The complaint says Lopez and McNamee also made public statements accusing the family of operating a criminal enterprise.
The defendants contest the allegations and have asked the court to rule in their favor. Henry County filed its motion to dismiss, while Lopez, McNamee, Doak and White filed a separate dismissal motion.
Criminal charges dismissed
The criminal charges against the Waglers were later dismissed.
The family’s complaint quotes a November 2023 letter from Stater stating that Lopez’s initial investigative report was not received until May 8, 2023, more than two weeks after the arrests.
According to the complaint, Stater wrote that the report did not contain evidence supporting criminal charges, that one of Lopez’s sworn statements contained false information and that prosecutors had not been presented with evidence supporting charges against any member of the family.
Court records state that Stater placed Lopez on Henry County’s Brady-Giglio list in December 2023. Such a designation generally means that concerns about an officer’s credibility may need to be disclosed when that officer is involved in a criminal case.
Lopez challenged the designation. The Waglers’ August 2026 motion states that a state district court ordered Lopez removed from the list on April 1, 2026.
The court also ordered Henry County to reimburse Lopez approximately $30,540 for legal expenses associated with that separate proceeding.
The reimbursement was included in a recently approved $231,090 budget amendment for the Henry County Attorney’s Office. The amendment also covered additional staffing, software, training, furniture, cleaning and other expenses.
The ruling in Lopez’s Brady-Giglio case was separate from the federal lawsuit filed by the Waglers. It did not decide whether Lopez, Henry County or any other defendant is responsible for the damages alleged by the family.
The civil lawsuit
The Waglers filed their civil lawsuit in Henry County District Court on February 6, 2025. Lopez, McNamee, Doak and White moved the case into federal court the following month because the lawsuit includes alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution.
The original complaint contained nine counts. It accused the defendants of false arrest, unlawful searches and seizures, malicious prosecution, defamation, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of Iowa’s open-records law.
The Waglers are seeking at least $5 million in damages. They are also requesting punitive damages against certain individual defendants and the release of records related to the investigation, the decision not to prosecute and Lopez’s Brady-Giglio designation.
The defendants asked the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that the search warrant followed a lengthy investigation, was reviewed by an assistant county attorney and was approved by a magistrate.
They also argued that the officers were protected by qualified immunity—a legal protection that can shield government employees from personal liability under certain circumstances.
In December 2025, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger dismissed some claims but allowed others to continue.
The judge ruled that the warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause to search Curtis, Lori and Owen and the family’s home and business. Those portions of the lawsuit were dismissed.
However, the judge allowed the federal false-arrest claims against Lopez and McNamee to continue. The court explained that having probable cause to search for evidence does not automatically establish probable cause to arrest a particular person.
Related federal claims seeking to hold Henry County responsible for the arrests were also allowed to continue.
The court allowed claims involving the searches of Emma and A.W.’s bookbags and the seizure of their property to move forward against Lopez, Doak and McNamee, along with related claims against the county.
For purposes of deciding the dismissal request, the court concluded the complaint sufficiently alleged that Emma, A.W. and their possessions were not covered by the warrant. The judge denied qualified immunity on those claims at that stage of the case.
Other surviving portions of the lawsuit include malicious-prosecution, defamation, battery, assault and open-records claims.
The judge dismissed most of the family’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, Curtis Wagler’s claim involving the alleged body-cavity searches was allowed to continue against White.
The open-records claim against Henry County remained because the county did not ask the court to dismiss that portion of the case. The court separately denied McNamee’s request to dismiss the open-records claim against him.
The December ruling did not mean that the judge found the Waglers’ allegations to be true. When deciding the dismissal motions, the court accepted properly pleaded allegations as true for the limited purpose of determining whether they were legally sufficient to continue.
The latest developments
The parties have since exchanged records and taken depositions from people involved in the investigation.
On August 25, Henry County filed a motion for summary judgment. In plain language, the county is asking the judge to review the evidence gathered during the case and rule in its favor without holding a trial.
Two days later, the Waglers asked for permission to amend their lawsuit by adding a tenth count against Henry County. The proposed claim alleges that the county failed to properly train and supervise members of the Sheriff’s Office.
The Waglers say the factual basis for the new claim emerged during depositions conducted in June and July.
In his deposition excerpts, McNamee testified that the Wagler investigation was complex and that, to his knowledge, it was the first financial-crime investigation handled by Lopez.
McNamee also testified that Lopez approached him before the arrests and asked whether he should arrest the Waglers. McNamee said he told Lopez that he did not know all the elements of the case and could not make the decision for him.
According to McNamee’s testimony, he told Lopez that if Lopez believed he had probable cause, he could make the arrests but was not required to do so.
McNamee testified that he did not ask Lopez to explain what established probable cause. He also said he did not disagree with Lopez’s conduct during the investigation, did not discipline him and did not implement corrective training or change a policy afterward.
The Waglers argue that this testimony supports their proposed claim that the Sheriff’s Office did not provide adequate training, supervision or review.
In deposition excerpts, Lopez testified that the Henry County Attorney’s Office helped establish probable cause during the investigation.
Lopez said he could not remember whether anyone reviewed that specific search-warrant application. He also testified that there was “constant communication regarding the case,” although the excerpt does not clearly identify everyone included in those communications.
Henry County opposes adding the new claim. The county argues that the Waglers waited too long to request the change because the court’s deadline for amending the lawsuit passed in September 2025.
The county also says discovery has closed and that adding another claim now could prevent it from gathering additional evidence or hiring an expert witness to respond.
Henry County further argues that the proposed claim is legally insufficient because it focuses on this investigation and does not identify an earlier pattern of similar constitutional violations that would have placed the county on notice of a training or supervision problem.
In their reply, the Waglers argue that they could not have brought the proposed claim earlier because its supporting information did not become available until the depositions.
They also argue that the county would not be unfairly harmed because the witnesses with relevant information have already been questioned. The Waglers say they would not object to allowing the county additional limited discovery or an opportunity to identify a training expert if the amendment is approved.
Current status
The judge has not ruled on whether the Waglers may add the failure-to-train-and-supervise claim. The court also has not ruled on Henry County’s request for summary judgment.
Court filings state that trial is scheduled for April 12, 2027, although future rulings could determine which claims—if any—ultimately reach a jury. The trial date appears in the Waglers’ brief supporting amendment and Henry County’s response.
The case involves the conduct, training and supervision of county law-enforcement officers and a request for at least $5 million in damages.
That $5 million is an amount the Waglers are seeking—not money that has been awarded. No court has determined that Henry County or any individual defendant is liable for those damages.
Any direct financial effect on Henry County would depend on the outcome of the case, applicable insurance coverage and whether damages or a settlement are ultimately paid.
The Wagler case is one of multiple lawsuits currently involving Henry County. The claims in this case remain disputed, and KILJ will continue following significant developments as the lawsuit proceeds.