24FC:0055: Chandler Trautwein/Marshalltown Police Department - Dismissal Order

Date:
08/15/2024

Subject:
Chandler Trautwein/Marshalltown 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 17, 2024, Chandler Trautwein filed formal complaint 24FC:0055, alleging Marshalltown Police Department (“City”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

Mr. Trautwein’s complaint alleges the City violated Iowa Code Chapter 22 by refusing to provide dash and body camera footage related to an incident involving Mr. Trautwein.  

Mr. Trautwein requested dash and body camera footage related to an incident involving Mr. Trautwein that occurred on June 6, 2024. Mr. Trautwein’s original public records request was submitted to the City on June 12, 2024. The public records request shows that Mr. Trautwein requested access to several records including documents related to a citation, dash camera recordings, video recordings (including body camera recordings), speedometer calibration, radar logs, and training policies. The City responded through a series of releases of information and corresponding communications with Mr. Trautwein. The evidence submitted shows that the City provided available records in response to Mr. Trautwein’s request, but denied access to the dash and body camera recordings citing confidentiality pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

The Chief of Police for the City, Chief Michael Tupper, responded to Mr. Trautwein’s follow-up request for the recordings and indicated that the recordings were considered investigative records pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Chief Tupper went on to state that the prosecutor assigned to Mr. Trautwein’s case could be contacted to produce the recordings or that Mr. Trautwein could watch the recordings at the police department’s office. Chief Tupper provided a phone number and options for coming into the office to watch the recordings.

The City responded to this Complaint and provided a record of communication with Mr. Trautwein. The City’s position is that the dash and body camera footage are exempt from public record disclosure pursuant to Iowa Code Section 22.7(5). The City further stated that although the records are exempt from disclosure as public records, they have offered to provide a viewing of the footage to Mr. Trautwein and to provide the footage pursuant to the district court discovery process. 

Mr. Trautwein indicated he was unavailable to make an appointment to view the recordings and requested an electronic version of the recordings from the City. The City maintained its position and Mr. Trautwein filed this Complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board.

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 government body. (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

The City, through legal representation, filed a response. The response maintains the City’s position the recordings are confidential as a peace officer investigative report pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). The City’s response further indicates the investigation remains ongoing and required elements of the incident have been released in compliance with Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The City’s response included an analysis that applies the existing balancing test used to determine whether a peace officer investigative report should remain confidential.  Citing to Hawk Eye v. Jackson, the City argues the public interest would suffer from disclosure as a public record at this stage. The City also states there are no claims of use of officer force or officer misconduct that would “tilt the scales in favor of public disclosure.” 

We agree with the balancing analysis completed by the City and also agree that existing case law has demonstrated the ongoing nature of an investigation weighs in favor of confidentiality. Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750, 753 (Iowa 1994). The City has responded to Mr. Trautwein’s public records request and has attempted to work with Mr. Trautwein to provide the confidential information to him through the trial court proceedings rather than providing the recordings as a public record. 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, there is no a violation of Chapter 22. The records requested are part of an ongoing investigation and are appropriately deemed confidential pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). The City has provided public records that are required to be disclosed and have performed an appropriate analysis to determine confidentiality of the remaining records. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0055 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.