25FC:0024 Jason Kensett/Iowa Department of Public Safety - Report and Probable Cause Order

Date:
06/19/2025

Subject: 
Jason Kensett/Iowa Department of Public Safety  - Report and Probable Cause Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Zach Goodrich, Special Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Report recommending dismissal of a formal complaint.

FACTS

Complainant, Jason Kensett, alleges the Respondent, the Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS), violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by refusing to release requested public records pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 22.

On December 18, 2024, Complainant submitted a request for “any and all records of test results for cases involving Jason Kensett” in an email under the subject line “Records from the DCI crime lab.” Complainant provided additional identifying information including the case number and the name of the police officer involved in the matter.

After review, DPS contacted complainant on January 6, 2025, stating the requested records were confidential “pursuant to Iowa law, including but not limited to Iowa Code Chapter 22.7(5)...” (Emphasis added). DPS further stated that for a pending case, records must be obtained through discovery and with a subpoena. Complainant responded stating the dates of the records sought are, at a minimum, thirteen years old, leaving some presumably available for disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7(5), which states:

“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 ofan indictment or information under the statute of limitationsapplicable to the crime that is under investigation has notexpired.” (Emphasis added).

Complainant filed formal complaint 25FC:0024 on February 21, 2025. In response to the complaint, Counsel for DPS maintained their position that the records sought from the DCI Crime Lab are not subject to release under Iowa law. Counsel cited Iowa Administrative Code rule 661-150.5, implementing Iowa Code chapter 691 (State Criminalistics Laboratory and Medical Examiner). IAC rule 661-150.5 states, in its entirety:

Distribution of reports.

150.5(1). A copy of each completed report of analyses performed by the laboratory shall be provided to the submitting officer and to the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney shall be responsible for providing copies of any laboratory report to the defendant or defendants as required by law.

150.5(2). Results of laboratory analyses shall not be made available to any unauthorized person or organization.

Furthermore, Counsel cited supporting precedent, including rulings from the Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa Court of Appeals dealing with the disclosure of contents of peace officers’ investigative reports. In response to the claim that sufficient time has passed to render some of the records available for disclosure, Counsel cites an IPIB Advisory Opinion interpreting that peace officers’ investigative reports include all of the information gathered by officers as part of

an investigation into a crime or incident.[1]

In further response to the claim that sufficient time has passed and therefore some records should be available for disclosure, Counsel for DPS responded:

“The Department is unable to determine whether providing confidential information about alleged past cases could impact present investigations of the approximately 400 law enforcement agencies in Iowa the DCI Crime Lab serves. It is wholly possible Mr. Kensett is under investigation again by any law enforcement agency and disclosure of the DCI Crime Lab results would either hinder those investigations, or alternatively, give Mr. Kensett confidential information to aid him in committing further crimes. With such a miniscule public interest and a significantly high risk, the balancing test [from Hawk Eye v. Jackson] weighs in favor of nondisclosure.”

In conclusion, Counsel additionally stated that DPS found reason to believe Complainant may already have access to the records through discovery and mandatory disclosure from the state in a criminal court case. Counsel reiterated from their initial response that the records at issue would have to be obtained through an attorney via the limited disclosure options permitted under Iowa Administrative Code rule 661-150.5, Iowa Code chapter 691, and Iowa Code chapter 17A.

ANALYSIS

DPS presents a multipronged legal argument in support of the claim that the requested records are confidential – an argument which goes beyond Complainant’s argument based solely on the language in Iowa Code section 22.7(5). Several court rulings, an applied balancing test[2], and the IPIB’s own guidance are appropriately applied to this situation in order to reach the correct conclusion under Iowa law. Again, the exception in Iowa Code section 22.7(5) cited by Complainant states:

“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.” (Emphasis added).

However, DPS need not rely on the aforementioned exception to prevail – the records can be kept confidential under other provisions of Iowa law, most notably the clear regulatory language in Iowa Administrative Code for this precise category of records.[3] The supporting precedent from past Iowa court rulings further makes clear that the records sought in this matter, while they may be available for disclosure through other legal avenues, are ultimately not available for disclosure under Iowa Code 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 presented arguments and applicable law, it is found that this complaint does not meet the requirements for legal sufficiency.

Therefore, I recommend formal complaint 25FC:0024 be dismissed as legally insufficient pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Code rule 497-2.1(2)(b).

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June, 2025.

Zach Goodrich

Special Counsel for the IPIB
 

[1] IPIB 23AO:0003.

[2] See Attachment A, DPS Response dated April 4, 2025.

[3] Iowa Administrative Code rule 661-150.5.

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