Date:
03/20/2025
Subject:
Timothy Hansen/Franklin County Sheriff’s Office - Probable Cause Report and Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Timothy Hansen, Complainant And Concerning: Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, Respondent |
Case Number: 24FC:0093 Probable Cause Report
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Probable Cause Report:
On October 24, 2024, Timothy Hansen filed formal complaint 24FC:0093, alleging the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22
The IPIB accepted this Complaint on November 21, 2024.
Facts
This complaint concerns a fatal police shooting incident that occurred on June 20, 2023, in Franklin County, Iowa. The incident involved two deputies employed by the FCSO, and it was investigated by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) pursuant to Iowa Code § 13.12. On August 28, 2023, the Iowa Attorney General’s Office released its final report on the matter, which concluded that the deputies had acted with legal justification.[1] The DCI’s investigation was therefore closed. There is no ongoing criminal investigation in this case.
On September 6, 2024, Timothy Hansen submitted a Chapter 22 records request to the FCSO, seeking bodycam footage and related records from the incident. The FCSO denied the request, asserting that the DCI was the lawful custodian of all materials included in their investigative file, including materials obtained from the FCSO.
On October 21, 2024, Hansen filed formal complaint 24FC:0093, alleging that the FCSO had unlawfully refused to release requested public records. Upon opening the complaint, the FCSO’s initial position was that the DCI was the sole lawful custodian for the investigative file due to their control over the investigation. IPIB’s review of the complaint was put on hold while Hansen communicated with the DCI about the records.
On December 6, 2024, the DCI responded to Hansen’s parallel records request, explaining that bodycam footage “remains in the custody of the original jurisdiction in which the video was captured.” Following additional review, IPIB determined that the FCSO was the lawful custodian and provided advice on the application of Iowa Code § 22.7(5) to determine whether any portion of the investigative records could be withheld as confidential.
As of early January 2025, the parties had organically reached an informal agreement between themselves, in which Hansen would meet with the Sheriff in person to review the records together prior to their release. The parties agreed that, based on Hawk Eye balancing considerations, Hansen would only access the portion of the video leading up to the shooting itself, meaning footage of the deceased’s body and the aftermath would be withheld. This arrangement was suggested in part to address Hansen’s concerns that the FCSO might improperly edit the records to disguise certain details if they were released by other means.
Several attempts were made to schedule this meeting:
- On December 30, the parties spoke over the phone and arranged to meet at the Sheriff’s Office on either January 2 or 3. Hansen was unable to attend this meeting.
- On January 21, the Sheriff proposed several meeting times, though this message was not conveyed to Hansen until two days later due to an oversight. Hansen was unable to make any of these times work, though he had short notice in this instance.
- On January 31, Hansen agreed to call the Sheriff to arrange a new meeting time. His call went to voicemail. No further attempts were made to contact the Sheriff.
- In early February, the Sheriff left a message with Hansen, proposing multiple dates and times for a potential meeting. Hansen did not respond to this message.
- On February 14, the parties again spoke over the phone, agreeing to another meeting to take place on February 18. Hansen was unable to attend due to illness, and he did not attempt to reestablish contact after this time.
Hansen remains interested in the records.
Applicable Law
“Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record. Unless otherwise provided for by law, the right to examine a public record shall include the right to examine a public record without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record. The right to copy a public record shall include the right to make photographs or photographic copies while the public record is in the possession of the custodian of the public record.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).
Analysis
The initial review of this complaint was focused on resolving two legal disputes: 1) which government body was the lawful custodian of the records sought and 2) what standard applied to determine whether the records were entitled to confidentiality under Chapter 22. Although the FCSO resisted disclosure while IPIB considered these questions, the respondent Sheriff has made active efforts to fulfill his obligations as lawful custodian since the legal issues were settled. An informal agreement for the disclosure of these records was reached in late December 2024, and both parties assented to the terms of that agreement in written email communications.
Unfortunately, the parties still have not met more than two months after reaching their agreement, despite multiple attempts by the Sheriff to arrange a date. While the complainant has not necessarily been uncooperative, a review of the case timeline shows that he has been unwilling or unable to follow through with his portion of the informal agreement to resolve the case on at least four occasions for a period of over two months. In other words, the only factor preventing disclosure has been the complainant’s failure to appear to receive those records.
For this reason, dismissal is warranted. The complainant still has a right to access public records under Chapter 22, and nothing in this order would prevent him from contacting IPIB in the future regarding this matter, whether for clarification on the law or to file a new formal complaint. However, where the original denial of records was based solely on good faith legal interpretation issues which have since been resolved and where the lawful custodian has since made numerous attempts to fulfill their obligations pursuant to an informal agreement approved by both parties, there is no longer probable cause to find any violation of Chapter 22.
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
It is recommended the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred. Because the parties came to an informal agreement for the release of the records and because the sole factor preventing fulfillment of the records request at this stage is the complainant’s failure to meet with the lawful custodian pursuant to the terms of that agreement, there is no probable cause basis to find that the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office has violated Chapter 22.
By the IPIB Executive Director
Erika Eckley, J.D.
[1] Brenna Bird & Andrew B. Prosser, Iowa Attorney General’s Review of Officer Involved Death, Iowa Att’y Gen., Aug. 28, 2023, https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/iowa-ags-office-concludes-franklin-county-deputies-acted-with-legal-justification-in-shooting.
Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:
- 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.
By the Board Chair
___________________________________
Monica McHugh