24FC:0049: Lindsie Gallardo/Cedar Rapids Police Department - Dismissal Order

Date:
08/15/2024

Subject:
Lindsie Gallardo/Cedar Rapids Police 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 June 10, 2024, Ms. Gallardo filed formal complaint 24FC:0049, alleging the Cedar Rapids Police Department (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

Ms. Gallardo’s complaint alleges the City violated Iowa Code Chapter 22 by refusing to provide body camera footage and additional information related to an incident. Ms. Gallardo states as follows:

“On May 29, 2024 I filed a FOIA request along with 30+ others for the release of body camera footage and all related information of the incident involving David Vanderhamm on April 6th, 2024. DCI concluded their investigation into this incident around May 14th, 2024, but Sherri Hawkins responded to our FOIA requests on May 31, 2024 stating the case was still being investigated by DCI. This is incorrect information and is also cause for speculation against the CRPD. Please advise.”

The City responded to this Complaint and maintained its position the records requested are exempt from disclosure due to an ongoing investigation.

IPIB staff followed up with Ms. Gallardo to obtain additional information regarding her complaint. Ms. Gallardo did not respond to additional inquiries.

Applicable Law

Iowa Code defines a public record to include all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to the state. (Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a)).  Iowa Code also identifies types of public records that are exempt from disclosure due to confidentiality. Listed among these exemptions are peace officers’ investigative reports. (Iowa Code § 22.7(5)). 

Analysis

Ms. Gallardo requested body camera footage and all related information regarding an incident involving David Vanderhamm that occurred on April 6, 2024. The request for public records was sent to the City on May 29. On May 31, 2024, the City responded indicating the case remained under investigation and was exempt from disclosure. Subsequently, Ms. Gallardo submitted this Complaint to the Iowa Public Information Board. 

The City responded to this Complaint and indicated the case continues to move through a series of reviews pursuant to an ongoing investigation. 

Iowa Code § 22.7(5) is applicable to peace officers’ investigative reports that are deemed confidential by a government body, which states: 

“Peace officers’ 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.”

In its response, the City indicated it had released, when requested, the date, time, specific location and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. This public record was not requested by Ms. Gallardo as her original request specifically asked for body camera footage and 911 calls related to the incident. The City has demonstrated that information required by Iowa Code § 22.7(5) is readily available when requested.

The remaining details regarding the case have been classified as confidential by the City pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). A balancing test must be applied to determine whether a report should remain confidential pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 232 (Iowa 2019).

Case law has made it clear that that the ongoing nature of an investigation weighs in favor of confidentiality. Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750, 753 (Iowa 1994). Nondisclosure allows law enforcement to test out findings and theories about cases under investigation; it also works to ensure that the overall investigation is not jeopardized before its conclusion. Id.

In this Complaint, the City provided the basic facts and circumstances surrounding the case and has withheld additional aspects of the public record, including body cam footage and 911 calls, due to the ongoing investigation related to this case. For this reason, there is no violation of Chapter 22.

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.

After review of the requested information and the City’s response, it is determined there is not a violation of Chapter 22. The records requested are part of an ongoing investigation. Due to the nature of an ongoing investigation, the records are not improperly withheld as confidential.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0049 is dismissed 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 August 15, 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.