24FC:0089 Curtis Wagler et al./Henry County Sheriff’s Office - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

Date:
8/21/2025

Subject:
Curtis Wagler et al./Henry County Sheriff’s Office  - Investigative Report

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report: 

On October 9, 2024, Danny Cornell, on behalf of Curtis Wagler, Lori Wagler, and Owen Wagler, filed formal complaint 24FC:0089, alleging the Henry County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on January 16, 2025.

Facts

This case arises in the context of an ongoing controversy in Henry County involving the Waglers, who are the individual complainants in this case, the Henry County Sheriff’s Office, and the Henry County Attorney. Many of these matters are beyond the scope of IPIB’s jurisdiction, but the necessary background is summarized as follows:

• In the spring of 2023, the Waglers were subject to a brief criminal investigation related to their private business, for which they were arrested and charged.
• Shortly after their arrest, the Waglers were released, and the charges were dismissed at the discretion of the County Attorney.
• The deputy responsible for the investigation and arrest was later placed on the Henry County Brady-Giglio list by the County Attorney as a result of these events, though the County Attorney and Sheriff’s Office disagree about the merits of this decision.
• The conflict between the County Attorney and Sheriff’s Office over this and related matters has been covered by local news sources and may fairly be considered a matter of public controversy within Henry County.
• The Sheriff’s Office maintains that there are ongoing criminal investigations as of July 2025 which involve the Waglers and relate to the same incidents as the 2023 charges.

Danny Cornell has represented the Waglers throughout IPIB’s review of formal complaint 24FC:0089, which he submitted on their behalf, but he is not legal counsel for other ongoing legal matters, including pending criminal investigations.

On May 7, 2024, Danny Cornell, acting on behalf of the Waglers, submitted a Chapter 22 request for documents and communications relating to the named deputy’s placement on the Brady-Giglio list, along with a broad request for records relating to the county attorney’s decision not to prosecute the Waglers in the dismissed criminal case.

This request was sent to both the County Attorney and the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff received the request on May 9, acknowledged it for the first time on May 20, and provided the roughly 1,000-page investigative file to the County Attorney for review on June 3. On July 4, however, the Sheriff contacted a private law firm, seeking their assistance with the Chapter 22 request. The firm agreed to represent the Sheriff’s Office on July 11, and the Sheriff subsequently directed the County Attorney not to take any further action on the Chapter 22 request, as the Sheriff’s Office was the proper custodian. Cornell was first informed of this change on July 25, after contacting the County Attorney. On August 1, Cornell contacted the Sheriff’s Office, indicating his intent to file an IPIB complaint if records were not released.

On August 5, 88 days after the initial request, the Sheriff’s Office mailed a package with responsive records, though Cornell asserts this package was never received. On August 12, 95 days after the request, Cornell received the records via email. In an accompanying letter, the Sheriff’s Office asserted that all records responsive to the request were confidential based either on Iowa Code § 22.7(5) or attorney-client privilege, though five records (seven pages total) were included because the sheriff agreed to “partially waive” confidentiality.

On October 9, 2024, Cornell filed formal complaint 24FC:0089 against the Henry County Sheriff’s Office, alleging undue delay and the failure to release certain public records which he argued were improperly withheld. After opening the complaint, an additional 107-page PDF was released, consisting of public records previously released to a local newspaper in response to a similar Chapter 22 request.

On January 16, 2025, under IPIB’s former complaint review process, 24FC:0089 was “accepted” for further consideration of two Chapter 22 issues: 1) the alleged unreasonable delay, based on the 88- to 95-day gap between request and production, and 2) whether the Sheriff’s Office had applied the proper standard to withhold investigative files under Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

On May 12, 2025, the parties were able to reach the framework of an informal resolution. In substance, both parties agreed that the matter could be resolved if the respondents conducted a fresh analysis of the responsive investigative file records, applying the Hawk Eye balancing test to determine whether the qualified privilege of Iowa Code § 22.7(5) provided confidentiality for each category of record within the file. As part of this agreement, the respondents agreed to use IPIB’s interpretation of Hawk Eye, as described in Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, which they had not done in their initial response. While no informal resolution agreement was ever signed, both parties signaled they would agree to the following language for the first two terms:

1. “The Henry County Sheriff’s Office, with the assistance of legal counsel, will conduct a fresh review of records from the investigative file responsive to the Waglers’ original records request, applying the Hawk Eye balancing test to determine which records, if any, may be withheld as confidential under the qualified privilege of Iowa Code § 22.7(5).”
2. “Any responsive records which are not deemed confidential based on Hawk Eye or another confidentiality exception provided by law will be released to the complainants.”

The parties also agreed, in spirit, to a third term, in which the respondents would provide an explanation of how the Hawk Eye balancing test was applied for any investigative files withheld after the second review was completed, as reassurance that the proper standard was used. Any other confidentiality exception which was asserted would similarly by cited and explained.

The Sheriff’s Office tentatively agreed to each of the three terms described above to informally resolve the case. The complainants accepted the first two terms, but disagreed with the standard set by the third. Cornell instead suggested that the resolution require the creation of a confidentiality/privilege log, which would include 1) the approximate creation date of each record withheld, 2) the general subject matter or category of the record, 3) the type of document (e.g. report, email, memo), 4) the specific statutory exemption claimed, and 5) an explanation of the confidentiality interests, potential harms of disclosure, and a justification for why these had been found to outweigh the public interests identified by the complainants. Cornell also proposed a fourth term, which would guarantee the Waglers the opportunity to review disclosures and either agree to resolution or keep the matter open for further review or enforcement actions.

The parties were unable to resolve their disagreement over the justification required to establish compliance for the purposes of the third term. As such, no informal resolution was ever signed. Nevertheless, the respondents opted to proceed under the spirit of the mediated agreement and, on June 10, 2025, they released additional records to both Cornell and IPIB, along with a three-page explanation which summarized their analysis of each category of record in the investigative file. In total, 208 pages were identified for release, including:

• Redacted incident reports, criminal complaints, and “call sheets” with complaints received against the Waglers from members of the public and responsive actions taken
• The March 2023 arrest report for the Waglers
• The search warrant application used by the deputy
• A handwritten warrant inventory and other search warrant materials
• A letter to the Waglers about a legal bill
• A search warrant to a bank with partial results
• Emails between Cornell and the County Attorney for the return of seized property

Certain information, such as phone numbers associated with members of the public who filed complaints with the Sheriff’s Office, were redacted. Five general categories of records were withheld, with explanations and specific page ranges, as follows:

• Roughly 439 pages were withheld as investigator notes and internal communications, including 154 original pages and 285 which were duplicated from other records in the file.
• Roughly 83 pages were evidence obtained from the Waglers, including bills sent to the Waglers’ clients and invoices for payments.
• Roughly 50 pages consisted of communications between investigators and private citizen witnesses involved in the investigation.
• Roughly 91 pages consisted of business communications between complaining parties and the Waglers concerning the matters under investigation, which were collected by or provided to the Sheriff’s Office as evidence during the course of investigation.
• Roughly 92 pages were documents seized from the Waglers in execution of the search warrant or prints of searches of their computers as part of the investigation.

A second attempt was made to reach a signed informal resolution following the release of these records, but it was ultimately unsuccessful. Cornell asserts that either a more detailed index or direct review by IPIB staff would be necessary to ensure the respondents were not withholding additional records which should be disclosed under Hawk Eye. Cornell has also disputed the respondents’ references to any ongoing investigations against the Waglers, as it has now been over two years since the 2023 investigation and the deputy’s placement on the county Brady-Giglio list. According to Cornell, the two sets of files should be treated as entirely separate, tilting the balance in favor of public interests for the former investigation.

The respondents maintain that they have fully complied with their duties under Chapter 22 and have requested that the case be dismissed as resolved.

Applicable Law

“The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information:

5. 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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

Analysis

I. The Qualified Privilege of Iowa Code § 22.7(5)

IPIB originally accepted this complaint to determine whether the respondents had applied the correct standard of confidentiality to withhold records from the police investigative file.

In Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, the Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa Code § 22.7(5) created only a qualified privilege of confidentiality for records included in police investigative reports, rather than a categorical exemption. 926 N.W.2d 222, 234 (Iowa 2019) (holding that, despite the Court’s ruling in ACLU Foundation v. Records Custodian, “the legislature has acquiesced in [the Court’s] interpretation of section 22.7(5)” and “Hawk Eye remains the controlling precedent for disputes over access to police investigative reports”). In determining whether a report is entitled to confidentiality under Chapter 22, courts use the Hawk Eye balancing test, as derived from Iowa Code § 622.11. As the Court held in Hawk Eye, “[a]n official claiming the privilege must satisfy a three-part test: (1) a public officer is being examined, (2) the communication [to the officer] was made in official confidence, and (3) the public interest would suffer by disclosure.” Id. at 232 (quoting Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750, 753 (Iowa 1994)).

Confidentiality determinations often hinge on the last prong, which balances the public interest in disclosure against the potential harm, including considerations like the involvement of confidentiality informants, the presence of named but innocent suspects, and any “hearsay, rumor, or libelous comment” in investigation materials. Hawk Eye, 521 N.W.2d at 753; see also 23AO:0003, Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files. Whether the investigation is ongoing is another important factor, as temporary confidentiality may be necessary to protect the investigative process prior to its conclusion, but this not the only factor considered, and the Court has made clear that the “ongoing investigation” language in Iowa Code § 22.7(5) itself does not apply to the confidentiality for investigative reports. Mitchell, 926 N.W.2d at 230–31.

In this case, the asserted public interest in disclosure is based on the alleged misconduct or wrongdoing of the particular named deputy in charge of the 2023 investigation. After the County Attorney unilaterally dropped all charges against the Waglers, the deputy became the sole law enforcement officer in Henry County placed on the county’s Brady-Giglio list. This means that the County Attorney had identified a credibility issue based on the deputy’s handling of the investigation which prosecutors would be required to disclose in future criminal cases involving the same deputy in order to protect defendants’ due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments.[1] These decisions, and the resulting conflict within Henry County government, have been reported on my multiple local media sources and discussed in multiple open session meetings of the Henry County Board of Supervisors.

There is therefore a significant public interest in disclosure for the portions of the investigative file relating to the deputy’s potential misconduct, comparable to issues identified in cases like Mitchell. See 926 N.W.2d. at 234 (finding significant public concern in a highly publicized case involving a traffic stop police shooting involving a Caucasian police officer and an African-American motorist). This interest applies most heavily for several categories of records released, including redacted call sheets describing the actions taken by the deputy and the department in response to complaints about the Waglers, the criminal complaints themselves, and materials related to the search warrant carried out by the deputy.

However, the public interest is weaker in the context of the other categories of records described, such as communications made in official confidence between investigators and witnesses, evidence of financial transactions and related communications between the Waglers and complaining parties, and the contents of documents seized from the Waglers during the execution of the search warrant, including from their computers. None of these records would have more than a tangential relationship to the public’s interest in the deputy’s decision-making, while both witness statements and purely private records collected or seized in the process of an investigation are assigned heightened privacy interests which also weigh against disclosure. The apparent ongoing investigation by the Sheriff’s Office of the Waglers’ business practices is also relevant as a confidentiality factor given the overlapping facts with the 2023 investigation, but it is unlikely these types of documents would ever be produced even if the investigation were fully closed.

Similarly, while the investigator notes and internal communications about the case may be more relevant to the asserted public interest than other non-disclosed categories, these communications are also entitled to a greater standard of protection. In cases like Mitchell, these types of “reports or memorand[a] generated solely for purposes of a police internal review of [an] incident” have been excluded despite Hawk Eye analysis which balances in favor of disclosure, due to the expected "chilling effect on the candor expected for internal investigations." Id. at 235. And, while the facts of this case differ from Mitchell, the clear precedent is that this sort of tailoring is appropriate to accommodate the public interest without compromising the interests intended to be protected by the qualified privilege of Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

The complainants object to the respondents’ analysis on the basis that the investigative files relate to a police investigation which is now closed, despite the respondents’ assertion that there is still an ongoing investigation against the Waglers. From what has been presented, it appears that both the 2023 and 2025 investigations relate to the Waglers’ business practices and involve overlapping third party complainants, witnesses, and evidence, meaning there are similar confidentiality factors despite the formal gap between the two investigations. However, even if the investigation were assumed to be closed for the purposes of this analysis, the presence of an ongoing investigation is only one factor considered in Hawk Eye analysis, and “police investigative reports do not lose their confidential status under section 22.7(5) when the investigation closes.” Id. at 232. When taking all factors into account, and considering that the public interest is specific to the named deputy’s alleged misconduct rather than the investigation as a whole, there is no probable cause to believe the respondents misapplied Iowa Code § 22.7(5) to claim confidentiality for the documents withheld, at least not in the second review they conducted as a result of informal resolution. Indeed, it is arguable that more was disclosed than necessary.

Other routes to access may be available outside of Chapter 22, including discovery in ongoing litigation involving the Waglers, and it seems likely that the Waglers would have access to multiple categories of withheld records which were taken as evidence from them or their business during the investigation. Regardless, IPIB’s jurisdiction is limited solely to Chapter 22, which governs access to public records for all members of the public, regardless of any special relationship to the records they may have.

Finally, the complainants argue that independent oversight is needed to ensure compliance with Chapter 22, achieved through either a requirement that the respondents create an extensive records index subject to the complainants’ final approval or that IPIB conduct a separate in camera review of the records. However, the potential violation addressed by IPIB in its investigation of this case was based on a purely legal disagreement about the proper standard for confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(5), as opposed to anything which would suggest records were ever withheld in bad faith. The category-by-category analysis provided, which effectively creates an index of all records in the investigative file and explains how confidentiality was assessed for each, is more than sufficient to establish compliance under the circumstances.

II. Unreasonable Delay

A minimum of 88 days elapsed between the time the complainants submitted their Chapter 22 request and the eventual release of five records, and it was 95 days before the complainants received the records. The parties dispute whether this constituted unreasonable delay, though they agreed for the sake of informal resolution that the matter could be settled if the non-confidential records required to be released were properly disclosed.

Chapter 22 does not contain firm time limits for public records requests, and the general standard is that “[g]ood faith, reasonable delay” is not a violation if the delay is for a permitted purpose, including a determination of whether a record qualifies as a public record or is protected by confidentiality. Iowa Code § 22.8(4). In Belin v. Reynolds, the Iowa Supreme Court interpreted the language of Iowa Code § 22.10(2), which considers amongst other things whether a respondent has “refused to make [requested] government records available for examination and copying,” to imply six additional factors which could establish constructive denial due to an unreasonable delay. 989 N.W.2d 166, 174 (Iowa 2023). These factors include prompt acknowledgement and assurances related to a request, explanation of delays, whether the requester received rolling production upon availability, and similar communication. Id. at 175; see also 24AO:0010, Clarification on the Definition of “Reasonable Delay.”

Implicit in both Iowa Code § 22.8 and the Belin test is the expectation that response times are affected by the nature and scope of a Chapter 22 request. In this case, the request sought nearly a thousand pages of records, in addition to other communications outside of the investigative file (later determined to be covered by attorney-client privilege). A response period of multiple months would not be inherently unreasonable under these circumstances.

Nevertheless, the facts presented in the record do support a possible unreasonable delay. The Sheriff’s Office did not acknowledge the request in any way until eleven days after it was submitted, and there were no further communications made by the Sheriff’s Office to the complainants between the initial email on May 21 (when they provided a two-week estimate) and the notice of mailing given on August 6. The County Attorney, who was originally tasked with handling the request on the Sheriff’s behalf, requested an additional week on June 3, but no other estimates or updates were given after this time until July 25, when the complainant’s attorney reached out and learned for the first time that the Sheriff’s Office had taken control of the request. Neither the change of government contact nor the decision to hire outside counsel – both of which led to significant delays – were ever communicated or explained. There was no rolling production of records, nor were there sufficient updates when timelines changed. And, when limited disclosures were eventually made, the respondents asserted that the entire investigative file was entitled to confidentiality, implying that record-by-record analysis was minimal during this time.

At the same time, there were clear extenuating circumstances. Under normal conditions, a sheriff’s office would rely on the county attorney to handle legally complex records requests, and the majority of the delay in this instance was the result of a perceived conflict of interest where the investigative records sought were directly related to a then-ongoing professional dispute between the two offices. As a result of these concerns, the Sheriff’s Office reclaimed possession of the investigative file and began a new, independent confidentiality review using private counsel hired by the Sheriff himself. There is no reason to believe that similar delays are likely for other, future records requests which don’t involve these specific issues.

Given these facts, there is probable cause to believe a violation occurred, based on the length of the delay itself, the timeline provided to explain the delay, and, most relevantly, based on the lack of sufficient communication required by Belin to avoid a finding of constructive denial. However, because the respondents have since remedied the underlying issue and because additional preventative measures would be inappropriate where any unreasonable delay was the direct result of unique circumstances which are unlikely to reoccur in future records requests, dismissal of this portion of the complaint is appropriate as an exercise of administrative discretion.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report: 

a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation
For the portion of the complaint concerning the required disclosures from the police investigative file, it is recommended that the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe that the Sheriff’s Office is in violation of Chapter 22 following the IPIB’s informal resolution process, as appropriate disclosures have now been made and Iowa Code § 22.7(5) confidentiality has been properly asserted and justified for the remaining categories of records which were not released.

For the portion of the complaint alleging unreasonable delay, it is recommended that the Board determine that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred but dismiss the matter as an exercise of administrative discretion based on the unique, extenuating circumstances which contributed to the delay. 

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.