23FC:0133- Matthew Knowles/Crawford County Attorney's Office - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On December 7, 2023, Matthew Knowles filed formal complaint 23FC:0133, alleging that Crawford County Attorney’s Office (“Attorney’s Office”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

Facts

Mr. Knowles alleges he has requested 911 call information related to charges of a violation of an no contact order between Mr. Knowles and his ex-fiance who he estimates has made 40-50 911 calls to the Denison Iowa Law Enforcement Center over the last ten years. Mr. Knowles has received twenty-one audio files from the county attorney related to the charges. He claims there are additional 911 calls, potentially a dozen more that county attorney’s office has refused to divulge between at least September 2022 and December 2023. He alleges the failure of Attorney’s Office to provide the additional 911 calls is a violation of Iowa Code Chapter 21, Chapter 22 or both, open records violation. 

In his complaint, Mr. Knowles is requesting IPIB make certain that he receives ALL of the 911 audio files, and all of the required information about each call. He alleges that the 911 information is necessary to prove his ex-fiance’s history of making false statements and alleging harassment against him. He alleges the Attorney’s Office knows this and is obstructing justice.

In response, the County Attorney’s office stated it has provided 911 calls and other discovery materials to Mr. Knowles as part of two criminal complaints in which he is representing himself. The Attorney’s Office stated it provided all discovery materials relevant to the criminal complaints. The Attorney’s Office provided all of the twenty-one 911 calls and communication with Mr. Knowles to IPIB staff. The communications show the following:

1. On November 12, 2023, Mr. Knowles sent an email with the subject line “discovery” to the assistant county attorney “Please also include ALL 911 calls or police officer calls to the county attorney’s office from Emily Ditto, police bodycam, cruiser cam and responding officers names from September 22 until November 12, 2023. I am certain that by now there are no less then 20 to 30 more. as required per discovery.” The assistant county attorney agreed to provide any 911 calls she had and explained that video had already been provided.
2. On November 13, Mr. Knowles stated … “if you can get all of the dates that Ms. Ditto made contact with law enforcement unsuccessfully to get me arrested that would be great. I will get what I can from the City of Carroll. I will also request it from the police department but it is part of discovery.” The assistant county attorney states that she did not plan to respond to the requests for all dates as it was not relevant to the two pending criminal cases.
3. On December 6, 2023, Mr. Knowles wrote again and stated “It is a start for my 9-1-1 request thank you… but the request only goes to April 23, 2023 according to Rod Bradley…I have requested until present…I am also aware emily or someone called in the last couple weeks out to Walmart, again trying to get me arrested. So the saga continues. Cry wolf some more…they don’t believe you anymore but have no problem punishing me…it will never stop…please get from April til present December 6, 2023. The assistant county attorney stated, “‘I do not plan to provide from April til December 6, 2023’ as I do not deem it relevant to these two cases.”

Applicable Law

The IPIB has the following duties “receive complaints alleging violations of chapter 21 or 22, seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance, formally investigate such complaints, decide after such an investigation whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of chapter 21 or 22 has occurred, and if probable cause has been found prosecute the respondent before the board in a contested case proceeding conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.” 

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.14 outlines the requirements for disclosure of evidence by the prosecuting attorney upon defendant’s request or motion.

Analysis

Mr. Knowles is representing himself in a criminal action. The Attorney’s Office is representing the State on the other side of the criminal complaint. The Attorney’s Office has provided requested discovery to Mr. Knowles as part of the criminal complaint process. Mr. Knowles has requested additional discovery from the Attorney’s Office. The Attorney’s Office has stated the discovery request is not relevant to the criminal complaints. Mr. Knowles filed this complaint to compel the Attorney’s Office to provide additional discovery. The court presiding over the criminal complaint would have jurisdiction over a discovery dispute. IPIB does not have jurisdiction as discovery issues are outside the scope of IPIB’s authority. Therefore, this Complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

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.

Mr. Knowles complaint against the Attorney’s Office is outside IPIB’s jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 23FC:0133 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient pursuant to Iowa Code § 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 March 21, 2024.  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.