Date:
06/20/2019
Subject:
Anthony Lopez/Woodbury County Sheriff - Revised Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Anthony Lopez, Complainant And Concerning: Woodbury County Sheriff, Respondent |
Case Number: 19FC:0042 Revised Dismissal Order |
COMES NOW Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Revised Dismissal Order.
On April 18, 2019, Anthony Lopez filed formal complaint 19FC:0042 against the Woodbury County Sheriff (County) alleging that the County violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by denying the release of public records.
Mr. Lopez alleged that he made a request for certain arrest records, mug shots, and incident reports to the County on March 27, 2019. At the time of his request, the lawful custodian of the records was on vacation. Upon her return, she contacted Mr. Lopez to get more information about the identity of the person whose records were requested. She responded on April 11, 2019, indicating that there were two responsive records and that the fees for those records would be $20.00. The records could be released once payment was received.
Mr. Lopez requested that the records be provided electronically and that he be allowed to use a credit card for payment. The County replied that this request could be accommodated. One of the records, a mugshot, was delivered electronically to Mr. Lopez upon receipt of the credit card number.
While processing the credit card payment, the County needed a billing address for the receipt. Mr. Lopez objected to providing that information and filed his complaint a week later. He alleged that Iowa laws do not require that he provide an address when requesting a record.
The County Attorney’s office responded to the complaint:
Mr. Lopez has requested that the records at issue be provided to him in a specific format (via email). He has further indicated a desire to pay the fee for the records via a specific method (credit card). Under Iowa Code Section 22.3(1), “[f]ulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of expenses to be incurred in fulfilling the request…”
Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 22.3(2), the Sheriff’s Office may charge a reasonable fee for fulfilling a records request. The fee “shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service.” Actual costs are “only those expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records.” Per records custodian Randi Campbell, Woodbury County Sheriff’s Office records are kept in two separate computer systems. One system goes from present to approximately 2001. Records prior to 2001 are on a legacy computer system that must be searched separately. A search is conducted first by social security number. Then another search is performed based on name(s) provided or linked to the social security number. Mr. Lopez also provided an alias which required an additional separate search. Without a timeframe limitation on the request, each of these searches had to be performed on both computer systems. Any records returned were then printed out. Mr. Lopez requested to receive the records via email. This necessitated scanning the records and saving in a file format that can be attached to an email.
One of the two records responsive to Mr. Lopez’s request has been provided to him. The other record will be provided upon payment of the fees for the records. In order to pay by credit card, the card holder’s address is required to complete the transaction. The address requirement for processing a credit card is inherent in the credit card transaction and beyond the purview of Chapters 21 or 22. If Mr. Lopez does not wish to provide his address he has the option of paying for the record by an alternative method. Mr. Lopez was advised that he could pay by cash and an address would not be required. Mr. Lopez has declined that alternative.
The County has no control over the requirements of the payment method Mr. Lopez has chosen. He has declined to provide the necessary information or utilize another payment option. It is common for a credit card company to require a billing address, especially when authorizing a payment online with no ability to confirm the identity of the card holder. It is possible to pay by credit card in person without providing an address.
Mr. Lopez also objected to the County requesting that he provide the social security number of the person whose records he requested. The County replied that this information was sought to ensure that the proper records were retrieved. The use of identifying information (date of birth, social security number) makes it more likely that records under a different name are included.
The assistant county attorney explained: “If he had declined to provide a SSN, my recommendation to the sheriff’s office would be to do a name search for any records that match and provide them along with a disclaimer that they may or may not be for a specific individual.”
Iowa Code chapter 22 does not require that a record requestor provide a social security number for a record request concerning that person. The County could avoid future misunderstandings by making it clear to record requestors that identifying information is helpful, but not required, to receive arrest records, mug shots, or incident reports.
Iowa Code section 22.3(1) does allow a record custodian to delay the release of a record pending receipt of payment of expenses.
Iowa Code section 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and could have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. This complaint does not meet all those requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 19FC:0042 is dismissed as legally insufficient pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.” The IPIB will review this Order on June 20, 2019. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________________
Margaret E. Johnson, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was amended and resent by electronic mail on the ___ day of June, 2019, to:
Anthony Lopez
Joshua Widman, Assistant Woodbury County Attorney