Date:
06/15/2023
Subject:
Ben Ward/Altoona Police Department - Revised Consolidation and Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Ben Ward, Complainant
Altoona Police Department, Respondent |
Case Number: 23FC:0036 and 23FC:0043 Revised Consolidation and Dismissal Order
|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
Complaint 23FC:0036
On March 9, 2023, Ben Ward filed formal complaint 23FC:0036, alleging that the Altoona Police Department (Department) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Facts
Mr. Ward alleged that he requested a copy of the police body camera footage of an incident that occurred on March 3, 2023. When he downloaded the video, he alleged that four minutes of the video were missing. He based his allegation on the fact that he had a home security camera system that recorded the police vehicles from a distance.
According to Mr. Ward, the Department video recording shows a start time of 2:36 p.m. while his home security systems shows that the first police vehicle had arrived by 2:32 p.m. He asked that the IPIB assist by getting a copy of the alleged missing four minutes.1
The Department responded to the complaint on March 13, 2023. The police chief stated that the Department released the entire body camera footage. He stated that the discrepancy in the time stamp is probably due to the different systems used -- the body camera system utilized by the Department system and Mr. Ward’s home security recording system.
Analysis
The Department and Mr. Ward both sent copies of the video footage for IPIB staff to review. The home security system shows a neighbor approaching the police vehicle at around 2:32 p.m. When the body camera footage begins, this neighbor is seated in the police vehicle. A second police vehicle is also observed in the body camera footage, with that officer participating in the interview with the neighbor.
Even if both systems have accurate time stamps, it appears that between 4:32 p.m. and 4:36 p.m. the neighbor was entering the first police vehicle and waiting for the second officer to arrive. It also appears that the body camera was not activated until both officers were present and the interview was conducted.
Conclusion
It is highly likely that both timestamps are accurate. However, there is no credible evidence to indicate that the Department did not release the entire body camera recording.
Complaint 23FC:0043
On March 30, 2023, Ben Ward filed formal complaint 23FC:0043, alleging that the Department violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Facts
Mr. Ward alleged that he requested a copy of all information regarding a criminal investigation against him.2 The Department responded that there was only one open investigation and that Mr. Ward had received all of the information. Later, Lieutenant Steve Harris wrote to Mr. Ward and stated, “Hello Ben, I found that a detective is currently following up on Altoona case 23-000320, which is the open case that you are referring to. It appears that is regarding more recent interactions that continue to occur which result in conflict.”
Following this information, Mr. Ward sent a flurry of record requests seeking the police record referred to by Lieutenant Harris.
The Department responded to the Complaint stating that because the police case was still an open investigation against the individual requesting the investigation file, nothing but the public information summary would be released to Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward has received a summary of the case, including information stating the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.
Law
Iowa Code § 22.5(7) allows that a police investigative file can remain confidential if a balancing test shows the need for confidentiality. State ex rel. Shanahan v. Iowa Dist. Court, 365 N.W.2d 523, 528 (Iowa 1984).3 In this case, the first two parts of the balancing test are met, the request is for the police investigation file and includes information that was provided to the officers in their official capacity. The crux of the issue is whether there will be public harm in the disclosure.
Analysis
In this case, the police investigation includes information from Mr. Ward and disclosures potentially made by others who may be harmed by the release of the information. When finding a greater interest in retaining confidentiality, courts have focused on the presence of parties in the investigation that would be specifically harmed by the disclosure. See Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750,753 (Iowa 1994) (holding there may be a need to maintain confidentiality if the investigation contains potential “hearsay, rumor, or libelous comment.”). Additionally, a need to not interfere in the investigation process weighs in favor of retaining confidentiality. If the investigation is ongoing, disclosure of some specific parts of the investigatory file might jeopardize the overall investigation. State ex rel. Shanahan v. Iowa Dist. Court, 365 N.W.2d 523, 528 (Iowa 1984).
Conclusion
In this situation, considering the type of information, people potentially involved and the ongoing nature of the investigation, public harm would be done if confidentiality of the peace officers investigative file is not maintained.
Iowa Code section 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. This complaint does not meet those requirements.
Because both complaints concern the same respondent and essentially records requests from the same incident or ongoing incidents, the two complaints are consolidated.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaints 23FC:0036 and 23FC:0043 are consolidated and dismissed as without merit pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b). All records subject to disclosure, and not confidential, have been provided pursuant to Mr. Ward’s requests under Iowa’s Open Records law. There is no violation of Iowa Code chapter 22 under these facts.
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 15, 2023. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
________________________________
Erika Eckley, J.D.
1 Mr. Ward also stated that the video he received had a label called “Ben_Ward_harrassment.mp4.”
Previous copies he has received have labels such as “Axon_Body_3_Video_2022-07-24.mp4.” Iowa Code chapter 22 does not address the labeling of public records.
2 The police investigation is still ongoing no charges have been filed at this time.
3 (1) A public officer is being examined; (2) The communication was made in official confidence; AND (3) The public interest would suffer by disclosure.