25FC:0027 Jerry Hamelton v. Keokuk Police Department - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On March 12, 2025, Jerry Hamelton filed formal complaint 25FC:0027, alleging the Keokuk Police Department (Department) violated Iowa Code chapter 22. IPIB accepted this complaint on April 17, 2025. IPIB directed this complaint to informal resolution on May 15, 2025. An informal resolution could not be found and a Status Report was developed to update the IPIB at the July 17, 2025 Board Meeting. IPIB ordered release of the bodycam footage by August 15, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the requested record was made available for release to Mr. Hamelton.

Facts

On March 3, 2025, Hamelton requested body camera footage from the Department concerning a charge for driving under the influence and possession of marijuana. According to the Department, the request is related to an incident that occurred on February 28, 2025. The incident resulted in the arrest of the Keokuk City Administrator (formerly), who was subsequently charged with OWI First Offense and Possession of Marijuana First Offense.

The Department applied the applicable balancing test for peace officer investigative reports (Reports) and determined the body camera footage should not be released. This conclusion was reached based on the fact that the footage is part of a Report and includes the presence of a named but innocent suspect. The Department stated, “[Suspect] is a named but innocent suspect in an ongoing matter. [Suspect] has been charged but his case has not been adjudicated by the courts, so at this time [Suspect] is a named but innocent suspect until proven otherwise through adjudication by the courts.” The Department continued, “The Keokuk Police Department believes releasing this footage may taint a jury pool making it difficult for [Suspect] to receive a fair and impartial trial, particularly if the video, or portions of the video, are successfully suppressed and not entered into trial as evidence.”

Hamelton argued Iowa courts have ruled a named but presumed innocent suspect does not automatically establish confidentiality of Reports pursuant to Iowa’s public records laws.

On May 15, 2025, IPIB was presented with the Investigative Report in which IPIB staff indicated the balancing test weighs in favor of disclosure. IPIB discussed the complaint and recommended the parties be directed to informal resolution. A consensus was not reached by IPIB to determine whether the Department appropriately applied the balancing test.

Unable to reach an informal resolution, IPIB staff presented a status report requesting guidance from the Board on July 17, 2025. Applying the balancing test, IPIB found that the records should be released by August 15, 2025.

The City provided Mr. Hamelton access to the bodycam footage IPIB directed to be released, on July 28, 2025, seeking actual costs for the production of some of the requested records, including costs of redaction of confidential records.

On July 30, 2025, Mr. Hamelton, at his request, was provided the access to the records that did not require redaction. The remainder of the records from Mr. Hamelton’s request are available upon prepayment of production costs.

IPIB staff reached out to the parties on October 9, 2025, inquiring whether Mr. Hamelton still wanted to retrieve the redacted records at the costs assessed him. Mr. Hamelton alleged that the fee assessed is not reasonable.

On November 14, the attorney for the City provided an itemize receipt of costs incurred by the City to redact Mr. Hamelton’s requested records.

Applicable Law

“The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian’s authorized designee in supervising the examination and copying of the records. If copy equipment is available at the office of the lawful custodian of any public records, the lawful custodian shall provide any person a reasonable number of copies of any public record in the custody of the office upon the payment of a fee. The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custodian shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian. Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code § 22.3(2).

“d. An electronic public record shall be made available in the format in which it is readily accessible to the government body if that format is useable with commonly available data processing or database management software. The government body may make a public record available in a specific format requested by a person that is different from that in which the public record is readily accessible to the government body and may charge the reasonable costs of any required processing, programming, or other work required to produce the public record in the specific format in addition to any other costs allowed under this chapter.” Iowa Code § 22.3A(2)(d).

“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.” Iowa Code § 22.7.

Analysis

Under Chapter 22, a government body is permitted to require payment for the fulfillment of a public records request, so long as the fee is limited to the “reasonable expenses directly attributable” to complying with the request, including employee time involved in reviewing records for production. Iowa Code § 22.3(2).

The complainant’s remaining contention in his complaint is that the Department’s quote of $694.00 for the production of redacted records is unreasonable. Upon review, it appears the fee is reasonable and directly attributable to the cost of providing the public record. The nature of the public records requested by the complainant is relevant. The redaction of a video or audio recording is more specialized than that of redacting a pdf, word document, or email. The Department does not have the capability, either with the required redaction equipment or with qualified personnel, to perform the redactions internally. According to the itemized quote provided to Department from the redaction services used, the services charge $7.00/minute for the first 3 hours of footage review and $5.00/minute for audio redaction only. The records requiring redaction include two video files that are 57 minutes long, and an audio file that is 59 minutes long. Department provided an itemized invoice provided by the third-party vendor that showed the actual costs to redact the videos and audio records cost $694.00. The cost was calculated by minute and not on a flat rate. Based on the nature of the records, this is not per se unreasonable.

As lawful custodian, the Department may decide to release portions or all of the video with redactions. See Iowa Code § 22.7: “[t]he 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.” If a governmental body determines a video or audio footage should be released with redaction, the law allows a governmental body to charge redaction costs.

Another relevant portion of Chapter 22 involves data processing software provides that “[a]n electronic public record shall be made available in the format in which it is readily accessible to the government body if that format is useable with commonly available data processing or database management software. The government body may make a public record available in a specific format requested by a person that is different from that in which the public record is readily accessible to the government body and may charge the reasonable costs of any required processing, programming, or other work required to produce the public record in the specific format in addition to any other costs allowed under this chapter.” Iowa Code § 22.3A(2)(d). In whole, these code sections “demonstrate that Iowa Code Chapter 22 allows government bodies to redact public records as necessary for disclosure and to assess the costs for redaction.” 24AO:0014, Is a government body required to produce bodycam video and lifeguard statements in response to a public record request pursuant to Chapter 22?.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court found in Teig v. Chavez, that the legislative intent of Iowa Code Chapter 22 was to allow for recovery of expenses for production of public records beyond just copying costs. Teig v. Chavez, 8 N.W.3d 484 (Iowa 2024). “Iowa law supports the ability of the City to charge for redactions of public records.” See 24AO:0014. Based on the request and the breakdown from the City, the fee requested for the redaction of the records does not appear to be unreasonable.

IPIB Action

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

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
2. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
3. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
4. 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

The records requested involve confidential material. The Department was charged minutely rates of $7 and $5 by the third-party redaction for this work. Department obtain a quote from a third- party and provided an estimate for the costs to the requestor. Further, the Department is within its rights to seek prepayment of the costs prior to releasing the records even if the costs may hamper some access. Based on this, it is recommended IPIB dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.