Plaintiffs allege Jefferson County Attorney, DHHS official trespassed during investigation

FAIRFIELD – Three plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against the Jefferson County Attorney and an Iowa DHHS employee for allegedly trespassing and violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

The case pits plaintiffs Gail Osborn, Tim McConnell Seaba and Gordon Seaba against defendants Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding, Iowa Department of Health and Human Services employee Kelsey Koenig, and Jefferson County itself. According to the plaintiffs, Koenig and Moulding searched their property without a warrant in November 2024 while investigating an anonymous complaint alleging Osborn had recently given birth to a daughter and was using methamphetamine, a claim the plaintiffs call “entirely false” because Osborn was not using methamphetamine, and had not just given birth.

Koenig was the Health and Human Services Child Protective Worker assigned to investigate the case, who visited the plaintiffs’ property on Nov. 15, 2024, near the border between Jefferson and Washington counties. According to the plaintiffs’ legal brief, “Defendant Koenig observed that Ms. Osborn was thin and exhibited no indications of having been recently pregnant.” Plaintiffs allege that, after Osborn allowed Koenig to inspect the home, Koenig did not observe anything indicating a baby resided at the home.

“Ms. Osborn advised Defendant Koenig that she suspected another person had called in a false complaint about a fictitious child due to a conflict with that person,” the plaintiffs’ brief read.

The brief states that Koenig spoke with Washington County Sheriff’s Office Investigator Jayse Horning, who told Koenig he was familiar with Osborn from working with her at the fair, and that he had observed she was not pregnant that summer. Alicia White, a probation officer, had befriended Osborn, and told Koenig she had seen Osborn in “form-fitting clothing” over the past year and had never observed that Osborn was pregnant, the brief stated.

“Defendant Koenig accordingly had no information suggesting that the anonymous complaint was valid,” read the brief. “To the contrary, all of the information Defendant Koenig possessed confirmed that there was no such child and the complaint was false.”

According to the complaint, Koenig spoke to Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding on the afternoon of Nov. 15, 2024, who advised her to return to plaintiffs’ property with law enforcement and ask Gordon Seaba to search the property. Koenig and Moulding arrived at the property accompanied by Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Elizabeth Estey, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Burnett, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Miller, and two Washington County Sheriff’s Deputies who were not named in the brief.

The brief states that the defendants did not have a warrant to search the property, and that Timothy McConnell Seaba informed Moulding that no one was allowed on his property without a warrant.

“Defendant Moulding ignored Timothy McConnell Seaba and continued up the driveway to the main house,” read the brief.

Plaintiffs allege that Moulding and Koenig entered Gordon Seaba’s home without asking for or receiving consent, while Estey and the law enforcement officers remained at the bottom of the driveway, parked on the road. Plaintiffs claim that Gordon Seaba told Moulding to get out of his house, but that Moulding did not honor his request, and that Moulding and Koenig proceeded to search Gordon Seaba’s home.

Plaintiffs allege that Moulding telephoned Deputy Miller and informed Miller that Gordon Seaba had consented to a search of his property, after which the officers entered the property and conducted a search of the outbuildings and campers.

“No evidence that a baby had ever existed was found on the property,” the brief read.

Plaintiffs allege that Moulding then approached a separate building on the property, the home of Osborn and Timothy McConnell Seaba, whereupon Osborn told Moulding he did not have permission to enter her home without a warrant, and that she would sue him if he entered her home, but Moulding “blatantly ignored” this request and entered the home.

The three plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, and that Moulding specifically committed trespassing and invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs request punitive damages, compensation for violation of their constitutional rights, and attorney’s fees.

MOULDING RESPONDS

The Union reached out to Moulding to respond to the allegations against him contained in the complaint. Moulding said he and the other officials did enter the property to investigate a claim of a baby being born in secret, but insisted that the property owner voluntarily consented to the “brief inspection.”

“The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) received an anonymous report alleging that an infant in Jefferson County had been born ‘in secret,’ was in acute distress, and may have been exposed to dangerous controlled substances,” Moulding wrote in an email to The Union. “The report included specific identifying information, including the infant’s alleged name, date of birth, and location.”

Moulding said that statutory obligations required DHHS to initiate an investigation, starting with the DHHS investigator contacting the person identified as the supposed child’s mother to determine whether a child in distress was present.

“When the investigator requested permission to view the residence located on property owned by the woman’s boyfriend’s father, the woman became increasingly agitated. For safety reasons, the investigator, who was alone at the time, concluded the contact,” Moulding wrote.

Moulding said that, after consulting with members of his own office, DHHS, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and Washington County Sheriff’s Office, “it was determined that DHHS should return to the property and seek consent from the property owner to confirm whether an infant was present.”

“At no time was a criminal investigation initiated,” he wrote. “Under Iowa law, the existence of an undisclosed or ‘secret’ child is not a criminal matter. The sole purpose of the inquiry was to ensure the safety and welfare of a potentially endangered infant, consistent with DHHS’s legal responsibilities.”

“The plaintiffs have the right to seek redress in court,” Moulding wrote. “Jefferson County is confident that a full and fair review of the facts will demonstrate that no wrongful conduct occurred by any County official or agency involved in this matter.”

In addition to denying the plaintiffs’ claim that he entered their property without consent, Moulding also cast doubt on the reliability of one of the plaintiffs, and one of their attorneys, Ed Harvey.

“As with any case in which credibility is central to the claims, it is appropriate for the court to consider the background and reliability of the individuals offering those allegations,” he wrote. “Public records available on Iowa Courts Online reflect that one plaintiff, Ms. Osborn, has a lengthy record of prior incidents reflecting on her credibility, including a 2014 conviction in Calhoun County for making a false allegation of sexual abuse, alongside numerous other incidents spanning a half-dozen counties across the State of Iowa, which may be relevant to the any assessment of her credibility.”

Moulding stated that Harvey’s involvement in the case was “curious” since he is “not typically known as an attorney who practices in this area of the law.”

“Hopefully, Harvey’s representation is motivated by the interest of his clients, and not any grievance towards Jefferson County following his 2022 run for the office of Jefferson County Attorney, which he lost by a 50 point margin,” Moulding wrote. “Regardless of Plaintiff’s counsel, their representation does not affect Jefferson County’s confidence in the judicial process or in the evidence that will be presented.”

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY RESPONDS

The Union reached out to Harvey for comment on this case, and he stated that “It is my policy not to discuss pending court cases in the media,” though he referred The Union to contact his co-counsel Gina Messamer of Parrish Kruidenier Law Firm in Des Moines.

Messamer responded to The Union’s request for comment, saying that she took this case because she fights for the underdog.

“The law should apply to everybody, including county attorneys,” she said.

Messamer said she and Harvey filed charges against only Moulding and Koenig, and not the law enforcement officers from Jefferson and Washington counties, because those officers were acting on Moulding’s request, and the officers did not enter the homes.

“It’s the home entries that we were the most concerned about,” Messamer said.

The Union asked Messamer to respond to Osborn’s conviction for making a false allegation of sexual abuse, and Messamer said this was an attempt to “smear” Osborn, and had nothing to do with the allegations of this lawsuit.

The trial in this case is set for Jan. 11, 2027.

  Buy Photo

Call Andy Hallman at 641-575-0135 or email him at andy.hallman@southeastiowaunion.com