25FC:0134 Richard Francis v. Fort Dodge Police Department - Status Report

The Iowa Public Information Board

On September 20, 2025, Richard Francis (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 25FC:0134, alleging the Fort Dodge Police Department (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22. The IPIB accepted this complaint on October 16, 2025. This Status Report is developed to update the IPIB and to seek additional guidance.

Facts

On September 10, 2025, an officer of the Fort Dodge Police Department initiated a traffic stop. The stop was allegedly initiated for reckless driving. The driver involved in the stop was the mayor of Fort Dodge. Officers turned on their recording devices for the stop. The stop resulted in an OWI charge against the mayor.

On September 16, 2025, Complainant requested any bodycam and dashcam footage of the stop from Respondent. On September 17, 2025, Respondent informed Complainant that they were withholding the footage based on Iowa Code 22.7(5). Respondent reported they had been advised by the county attorney’s office that evidence of an ongoing prosecution should be withheld.

A complaint was filed with IPIB on September 20, 2025, alleging that the withholding of the video was improper under Chapter 22. During IPIB’s investigation, Respondent asserted that “until a pending case is either dismissed or a conviction is obtained, it is an ongoing investigation and any evidence collected by the police department is considered confidential records until such time the case is disposed of.” Upon the request of IPIB, the county attorney provided the following reasoning for their advice to Respondent: “if Chapter 22 were to be applied to release “discovery” information, it would permit defendants in pending criminal matters to obtain “discovery” without filing a motion for discovery in the criminal case, and therefore bypassing and undermining the State’s entitlement to reciprocal discovery from the Defendant under the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.14.” The county attorney did not address any other analysis or factors contemplated by Hawk Eye.

On December 19, 2025, the court issued an order suppressing evidence in the pending criminal case. Subsequently, the county attorney dismissed the charges and withdrew their opposition to the release of the requested footage. However, IPIB was then notified of a pending motion to seal the criminal record and evidence in the district court. This motion involved the same recordings at issue in the public records request. IPIB awaited the ruling from the district court before proceeding. On January 28, 2026, the district court denied the request to seal the evidence, directing the matter to be addressed in civil court or with the Iowa Public Information Board.

Respondent has not changed its stance and released the records; however, because the status of the records remains contested by the public official. Respondent and the city have been awaiting a decision by the Iowa Public Information Board to determine what their next steps should be.

IPIB staff requests a recommendation from the IPIB to determine the appropriate next steps.

Applicable Statutory Law

Iowa Code § 22.7 designates certain categories of public records as confidential: “[T]he 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[.]”

Peace officers’ investigative reports are included among the records that may be treated as confidential. Iowa Code § 22.7(5) provides:

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. 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(5).

Analysis

Iowa Code § 22.7(5) has been interpreted in greater detail through subsequent litigation.

Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019) involved a high profile officer-involved shooting. Mitchell was shot by police during a traffic stop and filed a civil suit for compensatory and punitive damages. As part of the civil suit, Mitchell sought discovery including reports related to the traffic stop and a prior traffic stop involving the same officer that also resulted in a shooting. The district court allowed release of the reports over the defendants’ objections because the investigation was complete and there were no confidential informants used or identified within the report. The defendants appealed the district court decision and the Iowa Supreme Court accepted the appeal.

The Court noted the case involved discovery and stated discovery is provided notwithstanding the confidentiality provisions of Iowa Code § 22.7. For this reason, the Court reviewed the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 22 and applied the balancing test applicable to police investigative reports as required by Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Mitchell, 926 N.W.2d at 228-229. The holding in Mitchell found that the type of confidentiality afforded to police investigative reports under 22.7(5) is a qualified, rather than categorical, privilege and that a balancing test must be applied to determine whether confidentiality should be maintained. Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019) (“We hold that Hawk Eye remains the controlling precedent for disputes over access to police investigative reports.”). The Court distinguished between the qualified privilege under 22.7(5) analyzed under the Hawk Eye balancing test and the categorical privilege under 22.7(11), which is not subject to the balancing test.

In applying the analysis, the Court relied heavily on the precedent established by Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994). The Court opined that, like Hawk Eye, the Mitchell fact pattern demonstrated the investigation was closed and that a confidential informant or unidentified suspect was not included in the report. It also noted the public interest in the misconduct of public officers.

25FC:0027, Hamelton v. Keokuk Police Department. In a previous decision, IPIB held 6 to 2 that the body camera footage of the police department related to a charge for OWI against a city administrator should be released as non-confidential under a Hawk Eye factor analysis. In that instance, the IPIB considered the following facts: the investigation was closed, not reports contains confidential or unidentified suspects, the charged individual held a public official position that worked closely with the police department implicating a public interest ensuring proper processing of the case without a conflict of interest or cover up.

25FC:0102, Johnson v. Polk City Police Department. In a subsequent decision, the IPIB found that there were not sufficient public interest factors weighing in favor of disclosure for the recording of a 911 call involving a noise complaint by a neighbor, even though the caller was a city council member. The IPIB upheld the city’s decision to withhold the recording as confidential and dismiss the complaint.

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 at 753).

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 confidential 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 of investigative reports. Mitchell, 926 N.W.2d at 230–31.

Mitchell and Hawk Eye establish the primary precedent used to apply the balancing test for investigative reports. There are numerous parallels between Mitchell, Hawk Eye, Hamelton decided by the IPIB, and the current complaint.

• The investigation is now closed.

• The Report contains no confidential or unidentified suspect. The suspect has been publicly identified.

• The individual arrested and charged is the mayor for the city and works with the police department in his official capacity. There is a public interest in ensuring the case was processed without conflict of interest or cover-up.

Factors that distinguish the current matter include that criminal charges have been dismissed after a finding by the court that the stop was not legally justified.

In this case, the official’s attorney sought the record be sealed and the judge referred the parties to our agency as a more appropriate forum for determining that status of the records.

Outstanding Issues

The parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the confidential status of the records. Complainant seeks release. Respondent is awaiting a decision to determine the legality of any decision to release any portion of the record.

IPIB staff, having reviewed the specific circumstances of the complaint and the applicable statutes and case law, recommend the body camera footage be released. The justification for release is based on the following elements as applied by the balancing test:

• The investigation is closed.

• The bodycam footage contains no confidential or unidentified suspect. The suspect has been publicly identified.

• The request is for body camera footage recorded on a street and in a public space.

• The individual arrested and charged was a public official for the City and worked closely with the police department. There is a public interest in ensuring the case was processed without conflict of interest or cover-up.

• One factor to consider justification for confidentiality in 22.7(5) cases is the innocence of the suspect until proven guilty and the impact release of the footage may have on a jury pool. However, this issue was considered by the Iowa Supreme Court in Mitchell and was found to be an inadequate justification.

• The public interest in the body camera footage outweighs any minimal privacy interests in this case. The individual arrested and charged has been publicly identified and there has been media coverage of the arrest.

IPIB staff is providing this update to the Board and seeking guidance on next steps regarding this complaint. IPIB staff recommend the footage be released based on the factors identified in Mitchell and Hawk Eye; however, they will proceed with seeking an informal resolution based upon the confidentiality status determined by the Board.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charissa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on February 16, 2026, to:

Richard Francis, Complainant

Fort Dodge Police Department, Respondent