25FC:0142 Eulando Hayes v. Black Hawk County Attorney - 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 25, 2025, Eulando Hayes filed formal complaint 25FC:0142, alleging that the Waterloo Police Department violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on November 20, 2025.

Facts

Mr. Hayes submitted a public records request to the Waterloo Police Department for records generated under Policy 431.4(a)—the department’s monthly video audit policy—and bias reviews conducted under Policy 401.5. In his IPIB complaint, Mr. Hayes stated he had requested and been denied “supervisor audit records”, “video audits”, and “bias reviews”. He did not state he requested or was denied copies of specific body camera footage.

Under Waterloo Police Department Policy 431.4, “all WPD Sergeants and Lieutenants shall conduct monthly reviews of randomly selected videos that would establish a statistically significant sample. The review will search for violations of state law, infractions of Department policy, conduct requiring further training, and identify positive examples of camera use.”

Under Policy 431.3(s)(4), violations observed during video reviews may be used for training, education, or mentoring, or, in serious situations, referred for an internal investigation. Infractions identified during video audits may also be “cited in an officer’s performance evaluation.” (Policy 431.3(s)(4)(a).) In another section of the department manual, supervisors are required to document the periodic video reviews and “initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations” of the department’s bias policy. (Policy 401.5.)

The police department initially asserted that the requested records were not available and later clarified that the records were confidential because the nature of the audit-generated records is akin to a performance review. During IPIB’s investigation, the Records Manager further explained: “We understand that the video reviewed may be a public record in most cases. The city attorney has indicated that the supervisor’s evaluation and feedback of the video is in the nature of a performance evaluation.”

The audit records are addressed in this complaint as distinct from the video footage itself. Although Mr. Hayes submitted arguments to IPIB regarding the public-record nature of body-camera footage, IPIB did not receive information indicating that the complainant actually requested copies of the video from the police department. Rather, the request concerned only video audit records generated under the department policies identified above.

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:

11. a. Personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies. However, the following information relating to such individuals contained in personnel records shall be public records, except as otherwise provided in section 80G.3 [a provision protecting the confidentiality of personnel information for undercover law enforcement officers]:

(1) The name and compensation of the individual including any written agreement establishing compensation or any other terms of employment excluding any information otherwise excludable from public information pursuant to this section or any other applicable provision of law. [definition of "compensation” omitted]

(2) The dates the individual was employed by the government body.

(3) The positions the individual holds or has held with the government body.

(4) The educational institutions attended by the individual, including any diplomas and degrees earned, and the names of the individual’s previous employers, positions previously held, and dates of previous employment.

(5) The fact that the individual resigned in lieu of termination, was discharged, or was demoted as the result of a disciplinary action, and the documented reasons and rationale for the resignation in lieu of termination, the discharge, or the demotion. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “demoted” and “demotion” mean a change of an employee from a position in a given classification to a position in a classification having a lower pay grade.” Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a).

Analysis

From the plain language of the policy, it is clear the respondent likely generates documents in relation to these policies, including supervisor notes, investigation referrals, performance reviews, etc. The question is whether the records generated under the audit policies are properly withheld under the personal information exception in 22.7(11)(a).

In ACLU Foundation, the Court diverged from existing case law, outlining a two-part process for evaluating the § 22.7(11) exemption:

In summary, to determine if required information is exempt under section 22.7(11), we must first determine whether the information fits into the category of “[p]ersonal information in confidential public records." We do this by looking at the language of the statute, our prior caselaw, and caselaw from other states. If we conclude the information fits into this category, then our inquiry ends. If it does not, we will then apply the balancing test under our present analytical framework. 818 N.W.2d at 235.

Accordingly, once requested material falls within a category protected by the statute, it is deemed confidential, and no additional analysis is necessary. ACLU v. Atlantic Community School District, 818 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Iowa 2012). The confidentiality provided by § 22.7(11) is categorical. See Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 234 (Iowa 2019) (explaining that § 22.7(11) affords categorical protection from disclosure, unlike the qualified protection available under § 22.7(5)).

The specific category protected by § 22.7(11) consists of “personal information in confidential personnel records.” Id. at 233. Iowa courts have further clarified what documents qualify as “personal information in confidential personnel records.” In Des Moines Independent Community School District v. Des Moines Register & Tribune, the court concluded that investigative materials addressing concerns about a school principal and maintained in the employee’s personnel file functioned as performance evaluations and were therefore confidential under § 22.7(11). 487 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Iowa 1992). Similarly, in ACLU v. Atlantic Community School District, the court explained that disciplinary records and information concerning discipline contained in employee files “are nothing more than in-house job performance records or information.” 818 N.W.2d at 235. As a result, records and information relating to disciplinary actions fall squarely within the exemption set forth in Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a), because they constitute “personal information in confidential personnel records.” Id. In 23AO:0004, the IPIB analyzed the legal precedent and found that “[u]nder the court’s interpretation of ‘personal information in confidential personnel records,’ any records in the personnel file of the employee related to job performance are protected from disclosure under § 22.7(11), which would include positive or exculpatory performance records.” 23AO:0004, Confidentiality of Documents in Personnel Investigation.

The records sought here in relation to the performance review of fellow officers, clearly is particular to the identified or identifiable officers who completed the reviews as part of their job duties and those who were the subject to the reviews by senior officers. The records generated belong within the category of records which would naturally be included within confidential personnel files.

Mr. Hayes points to the purpose of the policy in support of his argument that these audit records are not personal information: “The WPB introduced the BWC program to assist in building trust in policing; protecting the public’s civil liberties; ensuring professional behavior; and providing a neutral and objective viewpoint for officer misconduct investigations.” (Policy 431.4(a)(1)).

While a secondary benefit of improved officer conduct is certainly greater community trust and better protection of the public’s rights, it does not negate that the police department’s policy manual mandates that the video audit records must be used to educate, correct, and at times investigate officers for misconduct. The additional provisions requiring that supervisors review a majority of videos of their own supervisees and that the violations they find may be used as part of the officer’s performance review make it more persuasive that the records generated during the video review process properly belong within the confidentiality exception in 22.5(11)(a). The policy details demonstrate the primary purpose is to address officer misconduct, either informally or formally. Therefore, the records requested here should fall within the “personal information in confidential personnel records” exception to public records.

The respondent concedes that public record requests for the actual video footage of policing incidents are treated differently than the “mandatory monthly video audits” and “bias review” records requested here; and would be analyzed differently.

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

The respondent’s policies make clear the primary purpose of the records generated under the police department’s video audit policy is to assess, improve and address officer mistakes and misconduct. Because the records generated under these policies are akin to confidential job performance evaluations, they fall within the categorical confidential exception under Chapter 22.7(11)(a) and withholding the records at issue does not constitute a violation of Chapter 22. It is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charisa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Eulando Hayes, Complainant

Waterloo 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:

Eulando Hayes, Complainant

Black Hawk County Attorney, Respondent