Advisory Opinion 26AO:0004
DATE: March 19, 2026
SUBJECT: Inadmissible and Sealed Evidence
This opinion concerns confidentiality of certain records related to police investigative reports under Iowa Code 22.7(5). Advisory opinions may be adopted by the board pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.6(3) and Rule 497–1.2(2): “[t]he board may on its own motion issue opinions without receiving a formal request.” IPIB’s jurisdiction is limited to the application of Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23, and rules in Iowa Administrative Code chapter 497. Advice in a Board opinion, if followed, constitutes a defense to a subsequent complaint based on the same facts and circumstances.
QUESTIONS POSED:
When a criminal court suppresses evidence obtained as the direct result of an unconstitutional traffic stop, does that suppression ruling (standing alone) affect whether the corresponding body-worn camera footage and associated evidence within an investigative report must/may be disclosed under Iowa Code Chapter 22?
If the district court grants relief consistent with a pending motion sealing/preventing public dissemination of “any video evidence or other evidence obtained following the traffic stop”—does that court order render the relevant requested records “subject to nondisclosure” for Chapter 22 purposes? And, if so, how should the City document and apply that restriction to the requested recordings?
OPINION:
When a criminal court suppresses evidence obtained as the direct result of an unconstitutional traffic stop, does that suppression ruling (standing alone) affect whether the corresponding body-worn camera footage and associated evidence within an investigative report must/may be disclosed under Iowa Code Chapter 22?
Iowa Code Chapter 22 opens Iowa’s public records, giving “all persons the rights to examine public records . . . [but] then lists specific categories of records that must be kept confidential.” Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 229 (Iowa 2019) (citing ACLU of Iowa, Inc. v. Recs. Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 232 (Iowa 2012)). While Chapter 22 favors transparency, Iowa Code § 22.7 carves out confidentiality for certain types of public records.[1] In some circumstances, the type of body-worn camera footage discussed here may be a public record subject to disclosure; at other times, it may be lawfully withheld as a confidential part of a police officer investigative report.[2] Investigative reports, which may include the type of bodycam footage referenced here, are generally analyzed individually to determine their confidentiality status.[3] When disclosure is disputed under Iowa Code § 22.7(5), the responding governmental body must undertake an analysis under the Mitchell/Hawk Eye balancing test to determine whether, when weighing public interest in disclosure against the potential harm of such disclosure, the record should be withheld as confidential.[4]
This question turns on whether, and how, an order suppressing evidence in a criminal trial affects that confidential status. The court’s authority to suppress evidence in a trial is a separate legal standard and analysis than a confidentiality determination. A judge’s analysis and determination regarding the admissibility of evidence at trial stem from other legal authority from the determination of whether the record is a non-confidential public record under Chapter 22. A judge’s determination to suppress evidence in a particular trial does not automatically render the same record a confidential record under Chapter 22. The custodian of the record still needs to undertake an individualized analysis under Mitchell/Hawkeye to make a determination on the confidential status of the record.
Although it is beyond the scope this advisory opinion, it is possible a court’s reasoning or determination regarding the admissibility regarding a particular piece of evidence may constitute one factor under the Mitchell/Hawk Eye test to determine the confidential status of a police investigative report.
If the district court grants relief consistent with a pending motion sealing/preventing public dissemination of “any video evidence or other evidence obtained following the traffic stop”—does that court order render the relevant requested records “subject to nondisclosure” for Chapter 22 purposes? And, if so, how should the City document and apply that restriction to the requested recordings?
The Court has previously recognized the separate, though intertwined, nature of the Court’s authority over discovery and evidentiary matters and the requirements of Chapter 22 governing public records. [5] At the same time, courts derive authority from other statutory provisions within the Iowa Code as well as from common law. Where a court properly exercises its authority to restrain a governmental entity from disclosing certain records, nothing in Chapter 22 suggests that the statute supersedes other provisions of law or limits the court’s authority to issue such an order. Accordingly, a governmental entity should not disregard a valid court order restricting disclosure when that order is issued pursuant to another source of legal authority.
If a governmental entity has been restrained from disclosing or producing a particular record, they may respond to the request for the record by reference to the applicable court order.
BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD:
Joan Corbin
E.J. Giovannetti
Barry Lindahl
Catherine Lucas
Luke Martz
Joel McCrea
Monica McHugh
Jackie Schmillen
SUBMITTED BY:
Charissa Flege, J.D.
Deputy Director
Iowa Public Information Board
ISSUED ON:
March 19, 2026
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(3), a person who has received a board opinion may, within 30 days after the issuance of the opinion, request modification or reconsideration of the opinion. A request for modification or reconsideration shall be deemed denied unless the board acts upon the request within 60 days of receipt of the request. The IPIB may take up modification or reconsideration of an advisory opinion on its own motion within 30 days after the issuance of an opinion.
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(5), a person who has received a board opinion or advice may petition for a declaratory order pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.9. The IPIB may refuse to issue a declaratory order to a person who has previously received a board opinion on the same question, unless the requestor demonstrates a significant change in circumstances from those in the board opinion.
[1] “[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.”
[2] See 22AO:0002 Body Camera Footage and Investigative Reports
[3] See 23AO:0003 Confidentiality of Police Investigative Files
[4] 24AO:0014 Is a government body required to produce bodycam video and lifeguard statements in response to a public record pursuant to Chapter 22? demonstrates how the IPIB has applied the Mitchell/Hawk Eye balancing test in the past.
[5] In Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, the Court found that “section 22.7 does not trump our discovery rules.” 926 N.W.2d 222, 228 (Iowa 2019). It further held that Iowa Code § 22.7 does not create a “true privilege against discovery of . . . confidential information.” See id. at 66. “[T]here is nothing in section 22.7 that suggests the legislature intended to limit the discovery rights of litigants in cases involving governmental entities.” Id. at 69. “To the contrary, section 22.7 indicates the opposite because it allows disclosure upon a court order.” Id.