25FC:0130 Kellen Garfield v. Iowa City Police Department - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On September 16, 2025, Kellen Garfield filed formal complaint 25FC:0130, alleging that the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on September 16, 2025.

Facts

On September 5, the complainant reported a suspected incident of child abuse to the Iowa City Police Department. The investigation included a recorded conversation between an officer and the complainant. Complainant then submitted a request to the Iowa City Police Department on September 11, 2025 for “all records, reports, finding, notes, and related materials” from the investigation conducted by the Iowa City Police Department. The complainant specifically requested “[t]he full written investigation report and any summaries or findings; [a]ll officer notes, internal communications, and supporting materials; [a]ny associated evidence logs, including photos or video if applicable, [and m]etadata or certification to confirm authenticity and chain of custody.” The Iowa City Police Department responded by asserting confidentiality under Chapter 22.5(7) as an exception to the obligation to produce the records.

The police department admits, through counsel, that at least some of the requested records exist, including a video recording of the interview and a written report generated through the investigation of the report of child abuse. The respondent also admits that the police department does have discretion to release investigative reports and they are declining to exercise their discretion to release the records.

Complainant asserts that the police department told her that the matter was not a criminal one; therefore, she believes the records cannot be withheld as a confidential record.

The complainant had additional concerns that the city did not provide adequate language access. The IPIB only has jurisdiction to enforce Chapter 21 and Chapter 22; therefore, the matter of language access is outside our jurisdiction.

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, expect 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. The Iowa Public Information Board interprets peace officers’ investigative reports to include “all of the information gathered by officers as part of an investigation into a crime or incident.” 20FC:0127, Robert Corry/ Iowa City Police Department. 

In addition to showing that a record is part of a police investigative report, the governmental entity claiming privilege must also show “(1) a public officer is being examined, (2) the communication was made in official confidence, and (3) the public interest would suffer by disclosure.” Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 232 (Iowa 2019) (citing Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Iowa 1994)).

Part one of this test has been interpreted to include to “protect[] the communication itself, including any written report of the communication, and not just oral examination of the public office.” State ex rel. Shanahan, 356 N.W.2d 523, 528 (Iowa 1984). A record that has been determine to be part of an investigative report satisfies part one because “the privilege may be invoked at any stage of proceedings where confidential communications would otherwise be disclosed, not just when a witness is testifying.” Id. Part two concerns whether the information requested was communicated to the official in official confidence. 23AO0003. The last part considers weighing the public interest in disclosing the records against the potential harm that such a disclosure would cause. Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750, 753 (Iowa 1994).

Analysis

Considering the applicable legal standard, the complainant argues either that the record is not an investigative report under §22.7(5), or, alternatively, that if it is an investigative report, the factors in the Hawk Eye balancing test weigh in favor of disclosure of the requested records.

In this instance, the respondent has provided sufficient evidence that a criminal investigation regarding the abuse of a minor is open and ongoing. The complainant argues that because she did not receive any notice of case closure, there must not be a criminal investigation. However, there is no requirement that such specific notice or proof be provided to a requestor to establish the existence of a criminal investigation. The IPIB is satisfied that the information provided by the respondent is sufficient to substantiate the existence of the investigation. Therefore, the records at issue here are clearly part of an investigative report.

Iowa Code §22.7(5) grants discretion to the custodian of a police investigative report to disclose a confidential report. In Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, the Iowa Supreme Court held that Iowa Code §22.7(5) creates 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 that 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 apply the Hawk Eye balancing test, derived from Iowa Code §622.11. As the Court explained 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 in the context of public records requests often hinge on the third prong, which balances the public interest in disclosure against potential harm. See 23AO:0003, Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files.

In past decisions, the IPIB has interpreted 911 calls and similar communications, such as witness or victim reports, to be part of a police investigative file and, despite the qualified privilege, 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—beyond the information already disclosed—was outweighed by the potential harm of disclosure).

While a public entity must consider each record separately, rather than asserting blanket confidentiality for an entire investigative file, the individual records sought here—video of a witness interview, police notes, photographs, and other attached evidence—can be analyzed under the same framework.

While there is a public interest in government transparency, Hawk Eye also recognizes the public interest in protecting victims’ information to encourage reporting and disclosure of criminal activity to authorities. Furthermore, the records in the investigative report here involve an interview with a potential witness to a child’s injuries, which is analogous to precedent protecting the confidentiality of witness statements. See 23FC:0026, Sydney Crnkovich/Carroll County Sheriff’s Office. The records at issue are particularly sensitive because they involve a minor child, which weighs heavily in favor of confidentiality. It is not relevant to this analysis that the requestor is a witness. If the police were to release this information to one individual under Chapter 22, they would be required to release it to all members of the public, not just the parent.

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 communications sought were made in official confidence; and (3) the minimal public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the confidentiality interest in protecting records relating to a potential victim of child abuse, the qualified privilege of Iowa Code §22.7(5) applies. Therefore, the records sought were properly withheld.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

2. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

3. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

4. 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

It is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause. Because the records at issue are confidential records under Iowa Code section 22.7(5) and the extremely sensitive nature of records related to the criminal abuse of a minor child weighs in balance of preserving confidentiality.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charisa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on January 9, 2026, to:

Kellen Garfield, Complainant

Iowa 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 January 20, 2026, to:

Kellen Garfield, Complainant

Iowa City Police Department, Respondent