25FC:0027 Jerry Hamelton/Keokuk Police Department - Status Report

Date:
07/17/2025

Subject: 
Jerry Hamelton/Keokuk Police Department  - Status Report and Probable Cause Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

On March 12, 2025, Jerry Hamelton filed formal complaint 25FC:0027, alleging the Keokuk Police Department (Department) violated Iowa Code chapter 22. The IPIB accepted this complaint on April 17, 2025. The IPIB directed this complaint to informal resolution on May 15, 2025. This Status Report is developed to update the IPIB and to seek additional guidance.

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 argues 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, the IPIB was presented with the Investigative Report in which IPIB staff indicated the balancing test weights in favor of disclosure. The 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.

Since the last IPIB meeting, IPIB staff outreached to the Department regarding an informal resolution. The Department maintains its position the Report should not be released until the conclusion of the trial.

IPIB staff requests a recommendation from the IPIB to determine the appropriate next steps.

Applicable Statutory Law

Iowa Code § 22.7 creates confidentiality for certain types of public records: “[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:” 

Peace officer investigative reports are among the exceptions identified as potentially confidential.  Iowa Code § 22.7(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. 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).

Applicable Case Law

Iowa Code § 22.7(5) has been repeatedly litigated over the years, resulting in a more detailed interpretation and application.

Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019). This case reinforces the premise that confidentiality afforded to Reports under 22.7(5) is a qualified, rather than categorical, privilege and that a balancing test must be applied to determine whether confidentiality should be maintained. Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019). 

The facts of the case show that Mitchell was shot by police during a traffic stop and filed a civil suit for compensatory and punitive damages. As part of the civil suit, Mitchell sought discovery including Reports related to the traffic stop and a prior traffic stop involving the same officer that also resulted in a shooting. The district court allowed release of the Reports over the defendants’ objections because the investigation was complete and there were no confidential informants used or identified within the Report. The defendants appealed the district court decision and the Iowa Supreme Court accepted the appeal.

The Court noted the case involved discovery and stated discovery is provided notwithstanding the confidentiality provisions of Iowa Code § 22.7. For this reason, the Court reviewed the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 22 and applied the balancing test applicable to Reports as required by Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Mitchell, 926 N.W.2d at 228-229.

In applying the analysis, the Court relied heavily on the precedent established by Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994). The Court opined that like Hawk Eye, the Mitchell fact pattern demonstrated the investigation was closed and that a confidential informant or unidentified suspect was not included in the Report. 

Of particular importance, the Defendants in Mitchell argued the release of the Report would taint the jury pool in a future trial if the Report were to be released. The Court disagreed with the Defendants stating,

“We believe that concern can be addressed during jury selection. The district court noted, ‘The alleged facts of the incident have been the subject of wide media coverage and broad public discussion.’ The court continued, ‘Public disclosure of these reports in a county of over 200,000 people may enhance the public discussion but should not jeopardize any party’s right to a fair trial.’ We agree. We also note that the attorneys must comply with Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.6, which prohibits an attorney from making extrajudicial statements that ‘will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.’”  Mitchell,  926 N.W.2d at 235.

The Court also cited to the important public interest related to police shootings.

Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994). As noted above, Hawk Eye set the precedent and process in Iowa for applying a balancing test for release of Reports pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Like Mitchell, Hawk Eye is a civil suit seeking the release of Report. The Report involved possible excessive use of force and or misconduct by a member of the police department.

The district court ordered the release of the peace officer investigative report stating, “…any harm to the public interest caused by the report's disclosure was substantially outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.” Hawk Eye, 521 N.W.2d at 752. The district court ordered the release of the Report and the county appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court accepted the case.

Like Mitchell, the Court affirmed the district court’s order to release the Report. The Court based this decision on the following: There were no confidential witnesses, the investigation was closed, and the report did not contain hearsay, rumor, or libelous comment. 

The Court also cited to the important public interest of ensuring a police cover-up did not occur.

Analysis

Mitchell and Hawk Eye establish the primary precedent used to apply the balancing test for Reports. There are numerous parallels between Mitchell, Hawk Eye, and this complaint.

• The investigation is closed.
• The Report contains no confidential or unidentified suspect. The suspect has been publicly identified.
• The individual arrested and charged was the public administrator for the City and worked closely with the Department. There is a public interest in ensuring the case was processed without conflict of interest or cover-up.

It should be noted the primary justification for confidentiality identified by the Department is the innocence of the suspect until proven guilty and the impact release of the footage may have on a jury pool. This issue was considered by the Iowa Supreme Court in Mitchell and was found to be lacking as justification for withholding release of the Report.

Furthermore, if the broad interpretation utilized by the Department is applied, the end result is that the Hawk Eye balancing test identified by the Iowa Supreme Court in multiple cases is irrelevant and a Report could never be released until the conclusion of a trial, regardless of other relevant circumstances or the public’s interest in disclosure.

Outstanding Issues

The parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the release of the Report. Hamelton seeks release. The Department refuses to release any portion of the Report other than the immediate facts and circumstances. 

IPIB staff, having reviewed the specific circumstances of the complaint and the applicable statutes and case law, recommend the body camera footage be released. The justification for release is based on the following elements as applied by the balancing test:

• The investigation is closed.
• The Report contains no confidential or unidentified suspect. The suspect has been publicly identified.
• The request is for body camera footage recorded on a street and in a public space.
• The individual arrested and charged was the public administrator for the City and worked closely with the Department. There is a public interest in ensuring the case was processed without conflict of interest or cover-up.
• The primary justification for confidentiality identified by the Department is the innocence of the suspect until proven guilty and the impact release of the footage may have on a jury pool. This issue was considered by the Iowa Supreme Court in Mitchell and was found to be an inadequate justification.
• If the Department’s interpretation is applied, the Iowa Supreme Court precedent creating a balancing test before establishing a qualified privilege of confidentiality never applies  prior to the conclusion of a trial, regardless of other relevant circumstances or the public interest elements identified by the Court.
• The public interest in the body camera footage outweighs any minimal privacy interests in this case. The individual arrested and charged has been publicly identified and there has been media coverage of the arrest.

IPIB staff is providing this update to the Board and seeking guidance on next steps regarding this complaint. IPIB staff recommend the footage be released based on the factors identified in Mitchell and Hawk Eye.

By the IPIB Deputy Director, 

_________________________

Kimberly M. Murphy, J.D.

The Board voted 6-2 to order release of the video by August 15, 2025, and if so, then the matter will be dismissed on August 21, 2025, for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred. 

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Monica McHugh