24FC:0131 Jordan Johnson/City of Ankeny - Dismissal Order

Date:
02/20/2025

Subject: 
Jordan Johnson/City of Ankeny - 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 December 26, 2024, Jordan Johnson filed formal complaint 24FC:0131, alleging the City of Ankeny (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

In December 2024, the complainant, Jordan Johnson, submitted a Chapter 22 request seeking a police report filed with the City of Ankeny against his wife and family. Johnson claims the allegations in the report were false, causing “significant distress and concern” for Johnson and his family.

According to Johnson, the City provided the report, but certain information was redacted, including the reporter’s employer and address. Johnson claims that he should have access to “the identity and background of the individual who made this false report” so that he and his family are able to “take appropriate measures” to protect themselves. Johnson also asserted that the public interest arising from the false nature of the report and potential risks posed by the reporter could justify an exception to the usual confidentiality and privacy protections of Chapter 22.

IPIB acknowledged receipt of the complaint on December 31, 2024. A second email seeking clarification on the facts alleged in the complaint was sent on January 3, 2025, and two follow-up emails were sent on January 16 and February 4. Johnson has not been in contact with IPIB since the initial email sent on December 26, 2024.

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:

…

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. Specific portions of electronic mail and telephone billing records may only be kept confidential under this subsection if the length of time prescribed for commencement of prosecution or the finding of an indictment or information under the statute of limitations applicable to the crime that is under investigation has not expired.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

“Communications not required by law, rule, procedure or contract that are made to the government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. As used in this subsection, 'persons outside of government’ does not include persons or employees of persons who are communicating with respect to a consulting or contractual relationship with a government body or who are communicating with a government body with whom an arrangement for compensation exists.” Iowa Code § 22.7(18).

Analysis

This matter is dismissed for two reasons. First, the complainant has not been in contact with IPIB since his initial email, despite multiple attempts at outreach. Dismissal is appropriate for an abandoned complaint.

Second, the challenged redactions – the reporter’s employer information and home address – would likely be protected under both Iowa Code §§ 22.7(5) and (18). 

Iowa Code § 22.7(5)’s protection for peace officers’ investigative reports includes “all of the information gathered by officers are part of an investigation into a crime or incident.” 23AO:0003, Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files. The protection for investigative reports is considered a qualified privilege, subject to the three-part Hawk Eye balancing test, which requires that “(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.” Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 232 (Iowa 2019) (citing Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 512 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Iowa 1994)).

IPIB has previously held that 911 calls may be covered by the qualified privilege, implying that the first and second prongs may be met where a public records request seeks information from such reports. See, e.g., 23FC:0026, Sydney Crnkovich/Carroll County Sheriff’s Office. The third prong “requires the weighing of public interest in disclosure against the potential harm that such disclosure may cause.” Hawk Eye, 521 N.W.2d at 753. The complainant alleges significant public interest in “the false nature of the report” and “the potential risk posed to [his] family,” but there is no public interest under these facts in revealing where the reporter lives and works. On the contrary, the potential harm of revealing such information is quite significant. The balancing test weighs against disclosure.

The reporter’s address and employer information would also likely be withheld under Iowa Code § 22.7(18). Multiple IPIB cases have found that this provision may be properly applied for reports made by third parties to law enforcement, provided all other conditions are met. See, e.g., 20FC:0127, Robert Corry/Iowa City Police Department (finding that a police department could withhold a request for a victim’s statements to law enforcement about an alleged crime, as release would “clearly discourage” reporting and it would be impossible to release a statement from a known victim without identifying them).

Because the complaint has been effectively abandoned, and because the redacted information would almost certainly be entitled to confidentiality under both Iowa Code § 22.7(5) and Iowa Code § 22.7(18), dismissal is appropriate.

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.

The complainant is unreachable after multiple unsuccessful attempts to reestablish contact, and the request itself seeks confidential information.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0131 is dismissed as 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 February 20, 2025.  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.