Date:
09/19/2019
Subject:
Rhonda Tang/Cedar Rapids Police Department - Probable Cause Report & Final Order
Opinion:
Before The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Rhonda Tang, Complainant And Concerning: Cedar Rapids Police Department, Respondent |
Case Number: 19FC:0051 Probable Cause Report |
COMES NOW Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and submits the Probable Cause Report from the IPIB Administrator, Brett Toresdahl.
The IPIB has several options upon receipt of a probable cause report. According to Iowa Administrative Rule 497 - 2.2(4):
âBoard action. Upon receipt and review of the staff investigative report and any recommendations, the board may:
a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceedingâ.
The IPIB Administrator recommends that the IPIB find that there is a lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred and dismiss this complaint pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497 - 2.2(4)(b).
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of September, 2019, by
_________________________________
Margaret E. Johnson, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent by electronic and/or regular mail on the ___ day of September, 2019, to:
Rhonda Tang
Sherri Hawkins, record custodian, Cedar Rapids Police Department
Prepared by Brett Toresdahl, Administrator
Iowa Public Information Board
Background Information
Rhonda Tang filed formal complaint 19FC:0051 with the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) on May 15, 2019. She alleged that the Cedar Rapids Police Department (CRPD) violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by refusing to release various requested public records.
Ms. Tang filed this complaint on behalf of her brother, Ryan Buchheim, who is incarcerated with limited internet access. He made the record requests to the CRPD on four different occasions between March 29 and April 1, 2019. The CRPD fulfilled some, but not all, of his requests.
On March 29, 2019, he requested copies of the department's policy and procedures for âin fieldâ traffic stops, the tools and systems the CRPD uses, the databases that are assessed, the differences between field and database access, and whether officers use âNCICâ to conduct driver license inquiries.
On March 30, 2019, he filed another record request for âinformationâ showing specific inquiries regarding him.
The March 31, 2019, record request was for a complete âraw dumpâ of the police dispatch logs from the electronic dispatch system for all police activity, as well as any handwritten notes or log files. He also requested a copy of the computer and handwritten transaction files and logs from specific police cars.
On April 1, 2019, he requested all video or audio recordings recorded by any device from the same specific officers and units during the same time frame.
The CRPD Records Division Supervisor responded to his record requests and to Ms. Tangâs complaint as follows:
March 29, 2019 request: âRecords from these systems are restricted and classified and our agency cannot release information to anyone outside of law enforcement or certified personnel. Mr. Buchheim was advised to contact Iowa Department of Public Safety for further information.â The Iowa Department of Public Safety is the lawful custodian of these records.
March 30, 2019, request: These records are also restricted and classified and must be requested from the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
March 31, 2019, request: All the call log records were released. Ms. Tang indicated that she wanted what is essentially a CAD chronology report. This was provided to Mr. Buchheim during his court proceeding. It is prohibited from release as a public record under Iowa Code section 22.7(5), according to CRPD.
April 1, 2019, request: The videos and audio recordings requested by Mr. Buchheim are confidential under Iowa Code section 22.7(5) as peace officers investigative reports.
Iowa Code section 22.7(5) allows certain law enforcement records to be withheld as confidential:
5. Peace officersâ investigative reports, privileged records or information specified in section 80G.2, and specific portions of electronic mail and telephone billing records of law enforcement agencies if that information is part of an ongoing investigation, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in this Code. However, the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding a crime or incident shall not be kept confidential under this section, except in those unusual circumstances where disclosure would plainly and seriously jeopardize an investigation or pose a clear and present danger to the safety of an individual. Specific portions of electronic mail and telephone billing records may only be kept confidential under this subsection if the length of time prescribed for commencement of prosecution or the finding of an indictment or information under the statute of limitations applicable to the crime that is under investigation has not expired.
Concerning the records received by Mr. Buchheim at his court hearing, he believed that he received a redacted version and not a complete âdata dumpâ as requested. It was uncertain whether the videos and audio recordings should be considered investigative reports.
Parties were directed to work with IPIB staff to reach an informal resolution pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.9. IPIB staff requested that the Cedar Rapids Police Department provide additional information on the rationale used in responding to the record requests of March 31 and April 1, 2019.
Sherri Hawkins, Records Division Supervisor for the Cedar Rapids Police Department provided further explaination:
March 31, 2019, Request Response:
In Mr. Buchheimâs original request, he asked for a raw dump of dispatch logs for our electronic dispatch system. A spreadsheet of 120 calls for service (dispatch log) for the timeframe requested was given to Mr. Buchheim, of which 119 are unrelated to his call for service.
To clarify for the IPIB, we have determined that a CAD Chronology Report is what Mr. Buchheim refers to as the âraw dumpâ in his request and not the dispatch logs as stated in his original request. The CAD Chronology Report contains computer code information from the server that logs each step taken in a call for service. This is not a report that can be run for a specific timeframe, instead it is call for service specific.
The CAD Chronology Reports are not released without a subpoena duces tecum as it contains, or may contain, protected and classified information (such as Personal Identification Information, NCIC information, and criminal intelligence data, etc.) Per both State and Federal laws, this information can only be accessed and released to duly authorized personnel.
April 1, 2019, Request Response:
In a recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court(18-0124) filed on April 5, 2019, the Court ruled that âlawmakers intended for peace officersâ investigative reports (and) privileged records to remain confidential, even after the investigation has concludedâ as well as âPolice investigative reports do not lose their confidential status when the investigation closesâ under section 22.7(5). These records include video from dashboard cameras. The Police Department did not have body cameras at the time of this incident. We, however, are required to provide âthe date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding a crime or incidentâ which has been done in this case by a record request from Ms. Tang on 2/16/2018 in which she obtained the call for service report as well as the public release incident report, as well as all case evidence was submitted through court discovery process during the prosecution of this case.
An informal resolution was not reached in this complaint. The Cedar Rapids Police Department has provided an appropriate additional explanation requested by the IPIB regarding the withholding of the remainder of the requested records.
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Rhonda Tang, Complainant And Concerning: Iowa Department of Public Safety, Respondent |
Case Number: 19FC:0051 Order |
This matter comes before the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) this 19th day of September 2019, to consider a Probable Cause Report.
The Probable Cause Report recommends that the IPIB determine that probable cause does not exist to believe that the Cedar Rapids Police Department violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
The Probable Cause Report also recommends that the IPIB dismiss this complaint.
The IPIB finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the Cedar Rapids Police Department violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.2(4)(b) the IPIB adopts the findings and recommendations of the Probable Cause Report, enters a finding of no probable cause, and dismisses this complaint.
So ordered this 19th day of September, 2019.
_____________________________________
IPIB Chair
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent by electronic mail on the ___ day of September, 2019, to:
Rhonda Tang
Sherri Hawkins, record custodian, Cedar Rapids Police Department