25FC:0102 Nancy Johnson v. Polk City Police Department, Investigative Report and Probable Cause 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 11, 2025, Nancy Johnson filed formal complaint 25FC:0102, alleging that the Polk City Police Department (Department) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on September 18, 2025.

Facts

On August 4, 2025, police were called to the private residence of the complainant, Nancy Johnson, on a noise complaint filed by a neighbor concerning Johnson’s dogs. According to the dispatch notes in the police report, another individual on the property spoke with the officer. The officer informed this individual that the neighbor who made the call had a right to the enjoyment of their own property and that there was an ordinance which applied to barking dogs. The officer also served a 14-day notice for registration. The Department then closed the complaint.

On the same date, Johnson filed an Iowa Code Chapter 22 request seeking records of the incident, including body cam footage, dispatch logs, call records, and other written reports or documents from the police investigative file. In response, the Department released the dispatch log and video recorded by a third party, but the body cam footage was withheld. The Department’s representative stated that a court subpoena would be required for the release of this portion of the investigative file. It is not clear whether the Department intended to release the records under Iowa Code Chapter 22 or if these records were instead provided based on Johnson’s special relationship to the records.

On August 11, 2025, Johnson filed formal complaint 25FC:0110, alleging that the Department had violated Iowa Code Chapter 22 by failing to properly justify their decision to withhold portions of the investigative file and because they had not yet released the “date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances” of the incident, as information explicitly exempted from the qualified privilege of Iowa Code Section 22.7(5). Johnson also asserted that the Hawk Eye balancing test should be applied to favor additional disclosure, given asserted public interest (Johnson noted that the neighbor who made the call is also a member of city council) and the supposedly minimal confidentiality interests present where the incident occurred entirely on Johnson’s own property (as she was not concerned about her own privacy).

IPIB accepted this complaint on the limited basis that the Department’s records custodian may have applied the incorrect standard to deny access to certain records, as a departmental policy was cited instead of applying Iowa Code Section 22.7(5) or another statutory confidentiality exception.

Upon acceptance, the Department opted to waive protection for the body cam footage, which has now been released to Johnson. Johnson then challenged the decision to withhold the record of the reporting party’s phone call with the Department. Johnson questions whether confidentiality should apply to this call, as the caller was a sitting city council member, and disclosure could be required in the interest of government transparency.

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:

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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

Analysis

1. General Disclosures Required by Iowa Code § 22.7(5)

Despite extending a qualified privilege of confidentiality for police investigative files, Iowa Code § 22(5) provides that “the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding a crime or incident shall not be kept confidential,” except in unusual circumstances where greater confidentiality is needed to protect the integrity of an investigation or the safety of an individual. Because the complainant has received the written report of the incident and relevant body camera footage (based in part on her relationship to the records, rather than Iowa Code Chapter 22), it appears that the disclosures given have well exceeded the minimum disclosures promised by this portion of Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

The complainant disagrees with IPIB’s interpretation of the term “immediate facts and circumstances,” arguing that the phrase should be read to include other details, “including officer tone, demeanor, physical actions, and the sequence of events,” which are not captured in writing alone. These facts, however, go well beyond the plain meaning of “immediate,” which refers instead to fundamental information – the “who, what, when, and where” – rather than the sort of details or analysis which may be developed elsewhere in the investigative file. This narrower interpretation of “immediate facts and circumstances” is supported by the context in which the phrase appears, as part of list limited to basic information only (“date, time, specific location”), which itself is a carve-out to a general rule designed to provide confidentiality. If Iowa Code § 22.7(5)’s disclosure provision was interpreted to include such details as “officer tone” or “demeanor,” this would defeat the purpose of the confidentiality rule itself.

For these reasons, the disclosure provision cannot serve as the basis for the release of the additional records sought.

2. The Qualified Privilege of Iowa Code § 22.7(5)

Notwithstanding the aforementioned required disclosures, the complainant also asserts that she may be entitled to the remaining records from the incident based on the Hawk Eye balancing test.

In Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, the Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa Code § 22.7(5) created only a qualified privilege of confidentiality for records included in police investigative reports, rather than a categorical exemption. 926 N.W.2d 222, 234 (Iowa 2019) (holding that, despite the Court’s ruling in ACLU Foundation v. Records Custodian, “the legislature has acquiesced in [the Court’s] interpretation of section 22.7(5)” and “Hawk Eye remains the controlling precedent for disputes over access to police investigative reports”). In determining whether a report is entitled to confidentiality under Chapter 22, courts use the Hawk Eye balancing test, as derived from Iowa Code § 622.11. As the Court held in Hawk Eye, “[a]n official claiming the privilege must satisfy a three-part test: (1) a public officer is being examined, (2) the communication [to the officer] was made in official confidence, and (3) the public interest would suffer by disclosure.” Id. at 232 (quoting Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750, 753 (Iowa 1994)).

Confidentiality determinations often hinge on the last prong, which balances the public interest in disclosure against the potential harm, including considerations like the involvement of confidentiality informants, the presence of named but innocent suspects, and any “hearsay, rumor, or libelous comment” in investigation materials. Hawk Eye, 521 N.W.2d at 753; see also 23AO:0003, Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files. Whether the investigation is ongoing is another important factor, as temporary confidentiality may be necessary to protect the investigative process prior to its conclusion. However, this not the only factor considered, and the Court has made clear that the “ongoing investigation” language in Iowa Code § 22.7(5) itself does not apply to the confidentiality for investigative reports. Mitchell, 926 N.W.2d at 230–31.

In the past, IPIB has interpreted 911 calls and similar communications like witness or victim’s reports to be part of a police investigative file and, despite the qualified privilege, these are generally confidential. See 23FC:0026, Sydney Crnkovich/Carroll County Sheriff’s Office (finding that the Hawk Eye test favored confidentiality for a 911 call made by an individual reporting a dead body, where the minimal public interest in accessing the call audio in addition to required disclosures was outweighed by the potential harm in disclosure).

The complainant argues that the balancing test should favor disclosure because “[the caller was] a sitting city council member, not an innocent victim or witness.” While the council member’s status is relevant to Iowa Code § 22.7(18), which provides confidentiality for incoming communications from persons outside of government and has previously been used as an additional basis for confidentiality for reports to law enforcement, is not similarly determinative for Iowa Code § 22.7(5). There is no indication here that the council member’s government role was in any way relevant to the incident or the police department’s response, and the public interest is minimal for a routine police check-in into a dispute between neighbors over barking dogs.

Because (1) a public officer is being examined when investigative files are sought by a member of the public under Iowa Code Chapter 22, (2) the communication sought was made in official confidence, and (3) the minimal public interest is outweighed by the confidentiality interests of the complainant’s neighbor discussing an incident in her capacity as a private citizen, the qualified privilege of Iowa Code § 22.7(5) applies, and the record sought was therefore properly withheld.

IPIB Action

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

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.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

Because the Hawk Eye balancing test weighs in favor of confidentiality for the disputed phone call record, it is recommended that the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________
Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Nancy Johnson, Complainant

Polk City Police Department, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

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
___________________________________
Catherine Lucas

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on November 12, 2025, to:

Nancy Johnson, Complainant

Polk City Police Department, Respondent