25FC:0159 Ashley Richards v. North Liberty 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 October 24, 2025, Ashley Richards filed formal complaint 25FC:0159, alleging that the North Liberty Police Department (ICPD) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

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

Facts

On September 18, 2025, a minor family member of Ms. Richards was interviewed by the North Liberty Police Department. The interview was recorded. Ms. Richards then submitted a public records request to the North Liberty Police Department on October 18, 2025 for the “unaltered audio recording” of the interview, “a complete list of questions posed during the interview”, and “any notes, reports, or supplemental documentation generated from the interview.” In her request to the police department, Ms. Richards named the officer and date of the interview.

On October 22, 2025, the city’s attorney responded, denying the request based upon Chapter 22.7(5). In further exchanges, the attorney noted some of the records did not exist (the description and list of questions posed), and that Chapter 22 did not require the government to create new records to comply with a records request. Ms. Richards then filed this complaint, alleging the denial is a violation of Chapter 22.

During IPIB’s investigation, Ms. Richards noted her special relationship to the interviewee and argued that interest in transparency outweighed the confidentiality exception. She also stated the respondent did not provide the specific exemptions from public records production; however, this was contradicted in the communications provided between the two parties in which the city attorney explained in detail the reasoning used to deny each requested record.

The city attorney noted that the minor individual interviewed only did so on the condition it would be kept confidential, implicating 22.7(18) in addition to 22.7(5). The city attorney argued that even if 22.7(5) didn’t apply, the records couldn’t be redacted to protect the identity of the interview under 22.7(18)(b) and were therefore protected under 22.7(18)(b).

Lastly, the Complainant raised several concerns related to special education violations which are outside the scope of IPIB’s jurisdiction and will not be addressed in this complaint.

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 “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 determined 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, Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files. 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

The complainant alleges that the police department violated Chapter 22 by issuing a ‘blanket denial’, failing to desegregate the confidential and non-confidential material, and failing to identify which records don’t exist. Upon reviewing communications between the parties, the police department and counsel for the police department identified the specific reasons for the failure to produce the records. They cited three separate legal reasons for withholding the requested records: the non-existence of the records, §22.7(5), and §22.7(18). The city attorney also explained that the city “has no list of descriptions responsive to your request,” specifically identifying which record could not be produced because it did not exist. The records indicate that the respondent did in fact analyze each record, provide specific legal exceptions, and an explanation for the lack of production of records.

The complainant also alleges that withholding the existing records is a violation of Chapter 22 because the balancing test under Chapter 22.7(5) weighs in favor of disclosure.

IPIB must first determine whether the requested records are part of a police investigative report. In past decisions, IPIB has interpreted 911 calls, witness and victim reports to be part of a police investigative file. See 23FC:0026, Sydney Crnkovich/Carroll County Sheriff’s Office. Both the recording of the witness interview and the other records requested (“notes, reports and supplemental documentation generated by the officer in the court of the interview”) are of the same type of records that have been repeatedly been held by courts to be part of a police investigative report. Therefore, the requested records are properly considered part of a police investigative report for purposes of Chapter 22.7(5).

In determining whether a police investigative report is entitled to confidentiality under Chapter 22.7(5), 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 hinge on the third prong, which balances the public interest in disclosure against potential harm. See 23AO:0003, Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files.

In this case, the evidence provided to IPIB demonstrates several factors that weigh heavily in favor of confidentiality. The recorded witness statement at issue was given by a minor child who requested that the interview be kept confidential. The police investigation involves a potential criminal offense against a minor by another unidentified minor. The identities and victim-related information of minors are particularly sensitive. The reports also contain information about an unidentified suspect. Furthermore, the records at issue in this investigative report involve an interview with a potential witness, which is analogous to precedent protecting the confidentiality of witness statements. 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). Finally, the investigation remains open.

The factors weighing in favor of disclosure are limited. While there is a public interest in government transparency, Hawk Eye also recognizes a counter public interest in protecting victims’ information to encourage reporting and disclosure of criminal activity to authorities. Unlike other cases that have come before IPIB in which the balancing test has weighed in favor of disclosure, the records at issue here do not involve matters of general public interest, such as the conduct of public officials or preferential treatment by the government.

Like many public record requests received by police departments, this request involves a requester with an interest in a specific investigation due to a personal relationship with a victim, witness, or defendant. However, for purposes of Chapter 22, the relationship between the requester and the parties to the investigation is not relevant. When a government entity determines that a record is “public” under Chapter 22, the information must be released to all members of the public. Anyone who receives a public record then has the right to publish the information. In this matter, such disclosure would result in serious harm to potential victims and witnesses.

Given the strong public interest in protecting victims, promoting witness cooperation with law enforcement, and avoiding the serious privacy violations and harm that would result from public disclosure of a minor’s identity and statement, and in light of the absence of any compelling public interest beyond general government transparency, the balance in this case weighs heavily in favor of confidentiality.

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

Because the sensitive nature of records in an open investigation involving minor children weighs in balance of preserving confidentiality under Iowa Code section 22.7(5) and therefore, no violation of Chapter 22 has occurred, 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:

Ashley Richards, Complainant

North Liberty 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:

Ashley Richards, Complainant

North Liberty Police Department, Respondent