The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: William Hendrikson, Complainant And Concerning: Iowa State Patrol, Clear Lake Police Department, Cerro Gordo County Jail, Cerro Gordo County Attorney’s Office, Respondents |
Case Number: 25FC:0110 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On July 29, 2025, William Hendrikson filed formal complaint 25FC:0100, alleging that the Iowa State Patrol, the Clear Lake Police Department, the Cerro Gordo County Jail, and the Cerro Gordo County Attorney’s Office (Respondents) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
This case arises from an October 2023 law enforcement incident in Cerro Gordo County, which is also the subject of a pending federal lawsuit.
The complainant, William Hendrikson, alleges that he has sent “numerous lawful and specific public records requests” to the listed Respondents, seeking several categories of public records, including jail incident reports, surveillance footage, internal reports, personnel records, and other documents.
For the portion of the complaint against the Iowa State Patrol, evidence included with the complaint show that Hendrikson submitted an extensive records request to the designated Department of Public Safety (DPS) request coordinator on April 8, 2025. On May 5, the DPS records custodian released records obtained from the State Patrol’s database. The same day, Hendrikson acknowledged receipt but questioned the exclusion of certain records related to a particular incident. On May 6, the custodian requested additional information about the incident and offered to search the records a second time. Hendrikson responded that he was suspicious of the need to conduct a second search, suggested that the custodian was being evasive or dishonest, and threatened to “escalate this to the Iowa Public Information Board, the Office of the Ombudsman, and pursue all available legal remedies.” On May 7, the custodian offered a summary of the completed records request, including a brief explanation for confidential records withheld, and clarified why she had offered a second search.
For the portion of the complaint against the Clear Lake Police Department, show that Hendrikson submitted a similarly extensive request to the Clear Lake Police Chief on April 8. The police chief acknowledged the request on April 14, apologizing for the delay and stating that several categories of records sought were either likely to be withheld as confidential or else were not in the Department’s possession. Later the same day, Hendrikson challenged the possible refusal and threatened to “escalate this matter to the Iowa Public Information Board.” On April 24, the chief provided Hendrikson with an itemized quote for $1,930.00 for fulfillment of the request. Hendrikson has not paid this fee, which he argues is not reasonable under Iowa Code § 22.3(2).
For the portion of the complaint against the Cerro Gordo County Jail and County Attorney’s Office, Hendrikson sent a mass email to several county officials and departments on April 14, which included both a civil rights complaint and a lengthy records request. On April 22, the county attorney responded by informing Hendrikson that the Sheriff’s Office was opening a new investigation against him based on the contents of his request email. The county attorney also stated that, “[a]t this time, the documents requested will not be provided,” with a citation to Iowa Code § 22.7(5).
On April 28, 2025, after the DCI declined to initiate an investigation, Hendrikson filed a complaint against the Respondents with the Office of Ombudsman, which was expanded in May 2025 to include other concerns involving with the same parties.
On July 29, 2025, Hendrikson filed formal complaint 25FC:0100, asserting several violations of Chapter 22 against each of the Respondents, including unreasonable fees, undue delay, improper withholding of records without legal justification, and failure to take official reports or preserve evidence related to the alleged violations of Hendrikson’s civil rights.
Applicable Law
“The [Iowa Public Information Board] 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.” Iowa Code § 23.7(1).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 23.7(1) limits IPIB’s ability to consider complaints filed more than sixty days from the time of an alleged violation or, where applicable, the time the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. Because this is a categorical statutory restriction on IPIB’s authority, a complaint which is not filed within the sixty-day window must be dismissed.
The complaint alleges that the Clear Lake Police Department’s quoted fee was unreasonable and in excess of actual costs, in violation of Iowa Code § 22.3(2). The disputed fee estimate was sent on April 24, 96 days before the complaint was filed on July 29, 2025.
The complaint also alleges violations related to unreasonable delay and failure to provide records. The final, conclusory email from the DPS records custodian on behalf of the State Patrol was sent on May 7 (83 days). A similarly conclusory email refusing to provide records was sent on behalf of the Cerro Gordo County respondents on April 22 (98 days). For the Police Department, the allegation that records were improperly withheld is inapplicable because the requested fees were never paid for fulfillment of the request, but any potential unreasonable delay in providing this estimate would have ended on April 24 (94 days).
Finally, the alleged failures to create or preserve public records related to the underlying incident occurred between October 16 and November 14, 2023, a minimum of 623 days before the complaint was filed.
The complainant contests the above analysis on the basis that each allegation constitutes a potential ongoing violation, as each continues to impair his rights under Chapter 22 in the present day. However, the facts presented show that all actions giving rise to the complaint occurred more than sixty days before the complaint was filed. Further, the complainant’s statements on April 14 and May 6 that he was considering escalating to an IPIB complaint show that he was aware of IPIB as a potential avenue for addressing his concerns, and his filings with the Office of Ombudsman on multiple issues raised in the present complaint indicate that he perceived these issues to be reportable potential violations at the time.
Because the complaint was not timely filed within the sixty-day window prescribed by Iowa Code § 23.7(1) for any of the allegations, IPIB must dismiss without considering the merits.
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 this complaint was filed more than sixty days from the time the alleged violations occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violations with reasonable diligence, IPIB lacks jurisdiction to consider the complaint on its merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0100 is dismissed as it is outside 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 9, 2025, to:
William Hendrikson, Complainant