Date:
06/19/2025
Subject:
Brandie Keegan/Iowa Department of Public Safety - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Brandie Keegan, Complainant And Concerning: Iowa Department of Public Safety, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0051 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On May 12, 2025, Brandie Keegan filed formal complaint 25FC:0051, alleging that the Iowa State Patrol (State Patrol) and Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
On April 12, 2025, the complainant, Brandie Keegan, submitted a Chapter 22 request to the Iowa State Patrol, seeking radar device calibration records for a particular radar speed gun used on a given date and location to measure Keegan’s driving speed. The records custodian for DPS responded, asserting confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(5) for the records requested, to the extent that they existed.
This complaint relates to the same set of facts present in an earlier case, 25FC:0030. That case concerned requests made by Keegan on January 21, January 23, and February 23, 2025, which sought multiple records, including the same device calibration records from the same incident, against the same two parties (amongst others). The complaint in that case was brought on March 14, 2025 and ultimately dismissed by IPIB on April 17, 2025.
Applicable Law
“[IPIB] shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A providing for the timing, form, content, and means by which any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of this state, the attorney general, or any county attorney may file a complaint with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22. The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. All complaints filed with the board shall be public records.” Iowa Code § 23.7(1) (emphasis added).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 23.7(1) limits IPIB’s jurisdiction to accept formal complaints by requiring that any complaint be fined within sixty days from either the time of the alleged violation or, if the alleged violation would not have been immediately apparent to the complainant, the time at which they “could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence.” If the sixty-day window is exceeded, then IPIB must dismiss the complaint as outside its jurisdiction. Iowa Code § 23.8(2).
IPIB case law demonstrates that, when multiple, duplicative Chapter 22 requests are made involving the same parties and public records, it is the government body’s response to the initial request which sets the relevant date for any alleged violation. For example, in 19FC:0056, Thomas O’Brien/Story County Medical Examiner, IPIB considered a complaint in which a complainant submitted one records request, which was denied, and then made an identical request seeking the same records four months later to receive a second denial and thereby evade the sixty-day deadline for his subsequent complaint. In its dismissal order, IPIB found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the case, as the complainant would have become aware of any potential violation with reasonable diligence at the time the government body first refused to provide records, regardless of later, identical requests. Id.; see also 20FC:0003, James Banks/Polk County Attorney’s Office; 18FC:0052, Charles Vandenberg/Fort Madison Community School District.
Because the present formal complaint was made on May 12, 2025 and the evidence from the previous complaint (25FC:0030) indicates that the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged violation with reasonable diligence prior to March 13, 2025 (the day before the prior complaint was filed), this complaint is outside IPIB’s jurisdiction.
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.
More than sixty days have passed since the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0051 is dismissed as outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 June 19, 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.