25FC:0101 Monte Jacobsen v. Grundy County Attorney's Office, Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On August 8, 2025, Monte Jacobsen filed formal complaint 25FC:0101, alleging that the Grundy County Attorney violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

On August 7, 2025, the complainant, Monte Jacobsen, submitted a Chapter 22 request to the Grundy County Attorney’s Office, seeking email communications and other records related to the prosecution of Jacobsen’s son. This request specifically included communications between the County Attorney’s Office and the local Sheriff’s Department or other law enforcement agencies, internal communications from within the office, any communications with the court or judicial staff which were not part of formal filings or proceedings. In a separate email, Jacobsen also sought records related to a vacation or travel request made for his son, certain communications exchanged with the parole board or the parole officer, and memos or drafts related to sentencing recommendations.

For the first portion of the request, the County Attorney cited Iowa Code § 22.7(4), asserting work product protection for written and electronic communications with law enforcement about the case, as well as various requested memos describing case strategy. The County Attorney asserted that all sentencing recommendations or other communications about the case with the court were made in open court (i.e. there were no improper ex parte communications). To Jacobsen’s other email, the County Attorney stated that she had not communicated with anyone regarding the vacation or travel request, about “ongoing compliance,” or about her office’s position on sentencing outside of formal plea negotiations.

This email response claiming no responsive communications for the second request was sent on August 7 at 10:49 AM. Eight minutes later, at 10:57 AM, the County Attorney sent a second email, stating that she had overlooked a brief email chain with the probation officer from June 2024, which was included for Jacobsen’s review. In the second email, the County Attorney stated: “The above is the only communication I had regarding [Jacobsen’s son] and ongoing compliance.”

On August 8, 2025, Jacobsen filed formal complaint 25FC:0101, alleging multiple violations of Chapter 22, including (1) improper withholding of responsive records based on a blanket assertion of work product protection and (2) the inconsistency between the 10:49 AM email, which claimed no responsive records for the other portion of Jacobsen’s request, and the 10:57 AM email, which disclosed an email record the County Attorney had previously claimed did not exist.

On August 11, 2025, Jacobsen sent a follow-up request, seeking an explanation from the County Attorney’s Office for the “legal and factual basis” for a criminal charge brought against his son, as Jacobsen asserted the charge was not supported by evidence. For this additional complaint, Jacobsen alleged (1) that the charge did not have a proper basis, (2) that the County Attorney’s failure to acknowledge the request as of August 13 (two days later) constituted a potential failure to respond, and (3) that the County Attorney’s “out-of-office” message, which was allegedly set for a week-long leave of absence, created its own violation because the government body had failed to designate a substitute custodian while the County Attorney was unavailable.

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:

4. Records which represent and constitute the work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body.” Iowa Code § 22.7(4).

“Good faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this chapter if the purpose of the delay is any of the following:

c. To determine whether the government record in question is a public record, or confidential record.

d. To determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so. A reasonable delay for this purpose shall not exceed twenty calendar days and ordinarily should not exceed ten business days.” Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(c), (d).

“The [Iowa Public Information Board] shall have all the following powers and duties:

4. Receive complaints alleging violations of chapter 21 or 22, seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance, formally investigate such complaints, decide after such an investigation whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of chapter 21 or 22 has occurred, and if probable cause has been found prosecute the respondent before the board in a contested case proceeding conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.” Iowa Code § 23.6(4).

Analysis

1. Confidentiality of Investigative Files

The primary alleged violation in this complaint is the improper withholding of records based on a blanket assertion of confidentiality. The complainant argues that Iowa Code Section 22.7 exemptions must be applied narrowly and interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure. However, as the Supreme Court has held, “where the legislature has used broadly inclusive language in [an] exemption, [courts] do not mechanically apply the narrow-construction rule.” ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (quoting DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Serv. Comm’n, 554, N.W.2d 875, 878 (Iowa 1996)). Iowa Code § 22.7(4) offers one such categorical exemption, which broadly exempts from disclosure “[r]ecords which represent and constitute the work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body.” Such communications related to litigation may also be privileged, as described by other chapters but clearly recognized by the courts in the context of public records. See Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 450–51, 463 (Iowa 2013).

Most of the complainant’s requests are specifically for the type of records which would fall within this protection, as he sought the work product of prosecutors handling a case on behalf of the county, including their opinions, legal theories, and other materials prepared for litigation.

The complainant also argues that the County Attorney failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of how Iowa Code § 22.7(4) or privilege applied to each potentially responsive record or, in the alternative, that redaction was required rather than wholesale denial of the request. However, Iowa courts do not recognize any equivalent requirement under Chapter 22 to the Vaughn index required under the federal FOIA, and redaction is only required for records which can be released in part with confidential portions removed.

2. Inconsistencies in Disclosure

Based on the materials submitted with the complaint, it appears that the County Attorney’s initial response for one of the disputed categories was to assert that there were “no emails” responsive to the requested category. Eight minutes later, the County Attorney sent a follow-up email, stating that she had forgotten a record, which was promptly released. The complainant argues that this correction is either a violation itself or is evidence that other documents may have been withheld.

Iowa Code Chapter 22 provides a “right to examine and copy a public record.” While unreasonable delay may constitute a violation if it interferes with this right, an immediate correction to add an overlooked record eight minutes after an initial response does not. Without further evidence to support the complainant’s concern that other documents were improperly withheld, this discrepancy cannot be taken as either a violation in its own right or as evidence of other violations. Indeed, the fact that the County Attorney conducted an extra check and provided the additional record would tend to indicate good faith compliance with the requirements of Chapter 22, rather than avoidance.

3. Improper Basis for a Criminal Charge

The complainant alleges that the criminal prosecution of his son lacked proper supporting evidence and may have been inconsistent with the requirements set forth in the relevant criminal statute. Even if this is assumed to be true, IPIB statutory jurisdiction is limited to Iowa Code Chapters 21 (open meetings) and 22 (public records). Iowa Code § 23.6(4). It is therefore outside of this agency’s jurisdiction to review criminal prosecutions for abuse of discretion.

4. Unreasonable Delay from Failure to Acknowledge Receipt

The complainant alleges that the County Attorney was potentially in violation of Iowa Code § 22.8 because of her failure to acknowledge his second records request. At the time this complaint was made, the request was two days old. Although acknowledgement of a request is amongst the communication factors identified in Belin v. Reynolds for an unreasonable delay inquiry, nothing in the Court’s opinion or other precedent suggests that Iowa Code Chapter 22 mandates the sort of immediacy the complainant argues for, even if the first records request in this case was responded to on the same day it was received. 989 N.W.2d 166, 175 (Iowa 2023); see also 24AO:0010, Clarification on the Definition of “Reasonable Delay.”

5. Failure to Designate a Substitute Custodian

Similar to the above, the complainant alleges that the County Attorney had set a week-long out-of-office message at the time of his second request. According to the complainant, this was a potential violation because the government body failed to designate an alternative employee to handle requests made during this time. While Iowa Code § 22.1(2) does require that the responsibility for the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 22 be delegated to particular officials or employees, nothing in Iowa Code Chapter 22 prohibits a brief leave of absence without officially designated cover, so long as it does not otherwise interfere with the lawful custodian’s obligations under Iowa Code Chapter 22 (i.e. a month-long vacation may lead to a violation if it creates an unreasonable delay).

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.

Because confidentiality was properly asserted to deny the bulk of the complainant’s records request, and because the remaining concerns are either outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction or do not amount to violations of Iowa Code Chapter 22, this complaint should be dismissed on facial review.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0110 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient, without merit, or 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 October 16, 2025.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on October 10, 2025, to:

Monte Jacobsen, Complainant