23FC:0037: Christine Knapp/Henry County Sheriff Department - Dismissal Order

Date:
05/18/2023

Subject:
Christine Knapp/Henry County Sheriff Department - Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On March 21, 2023, Christine Knapp filed formal complaint 23FC:0037, alleging that Henry County Sheriff Department (HCSD) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

Ms. Knapp alleges that on March 17, 2023, she requested incident and investigation reports for several case numbers involving a dispute with John Knapp in 2019 and 2020 that is part of a current civil case. The HCSD responded to her request and told her that the request would cost her $83. Ms. Knapp filed this complaint alleging that the fees were unreasonable.

In response, HCSD provided a breakdown of the costs for the records request:

• $30 for the current request;
• $8 for the copy of a report and device for a recording requested January 10, 2023;[1]
• $45 for a record request that was made on November 21, 2021 that was never collected by Ms. Knapp.

HCSD stated that they would be willing to provide the current request upon pre-payment of the $30, but that they would be seeking reimbursement for the $53 in unpaid costs for requests that were made by Ms. Knapp. Ms. Knapp’s complaint is not with the current cost estimate for the records requested, but is with the $53 charge for unpaid costs.

The question raised by the Complaint is whether, under Iowa Code § 22.3, HCSD can charge for records requests that have been collected and copied, but that Ms. Knapp has failed to retrieve.[2]

Iowa Code 22.3(2) states:

All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy. The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian’s authorized designee in supervising the examination and copying of the records. … Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records.

In an unpublished Iowa Court of Appeals opinion, the court was asked to determine whether an individual requesting public documents could be charged for the costs incurred in retrieving the public records. “Reading the statute as a whole, we conclude that the provisions of section 22.3 generally contemplate reimbursement to a lawful custodian of public records for costs incurred in retrieving public records. We find the phrase “all expenses of such work”[3] to be especially significant and indicative of the legislature’s intent that a lawful custodian has the authority to charge a fee to cover the costs of retrieving public records.” Rathman v. Board of Directors of Davenport Community School District, 580 N.W.2d 773, 778 (Iowa 1998).

“While the legislature did not intend for chapter 22 to be a revenue measure, at the same time it did not intend for a lawful custodian to bear the burden of paying for all expenses associated with a public records request.” Id.at 779. “[A]llowing entities covered under Chapter 22 to charge members of the public a fee to cover the cost of retrieving public records is consistent with the purpose and meaning of Iowa Code section 22.3” Id.

It is clear that HCSD was able to charge the actual costs for the time spent retrieving the requested records. The conflict arose when Ms. Knapp requested records, HCSD spent time retrieving and copying the records and then Ms. Knapp did not pay for or retrieve the requested records. This caused a past due bill for Ms. Knapp’s previous requests.

Since filing the Complaint, however, HCSD received the $30 pre-payment from Ms. Knapp for the current records requested. In the interest of resolving the Complaint, HCSD provided Ms. Knapp with the current records requested as well as the uncollected records all for the $30 payment and has forgiven the $53 past due amount cited previously.[4] Ms. Knapp has been informed that she will need to pre-pay for any records requests she may make to the HCSD.

Because the records have been collected and no past due amount has been charged, this matter has been resolved.

Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 23FC:0037 is dismissed as it has been resolved pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b). The records were provided.

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 May 18, 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] This record request was resolved and dismissed in Case Number 23FC:0007. In that case, Ms. Knapp alleged that her $5 payment for the records request was returned to her in the envelope she mailed to the HCSD. She received the record as part of the Complaint resolution, but did not pay for it. She also received a portable device for an audio recording, but did not pay for it.

[2] HCSD recognizes that prepayment for records requests is the better practice, HCSD’s policy is typically to retrieve the records when requested in order to be responsive to the requests.

[3] The current language of 22.3(2) requires that the expenses be reasonable, but this does not change the analysis.

[4] IPIB was notified that the check for the records was not valid when deposited. IPIB has no jurisdiction over any issues related to the payment by check.