26FC:0032 Steve Hebert v. City of Fort Dodge - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On January 26, 2026, Steve Hebert (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0032, alleging that the City of Fort Dodge (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

Complainant alleges two separate complaints, which are reviewed jointly under the heading 26FC:0032 for administrative convenience.

In 26FC:0032-1, Complainant presents several related allegations arising from Respondent’s handling of a water account dispute and a related administrative hearing for residential property located within the city. The complaint highlights several alleged inconsistencies in Respondent’s records-keeping, including possible evidence that a letter dated “October 29, 2025” was written or transmitted later than its stated date, an incorrect name listed in place of the property owner’s for hourly meter data associated with the property, and usage data which is inconsistent with the Respondent’s claim of “continuous flow” or “active use.” Complainant indicates that these inconsistencies led to procedural issues in Respondent’s handling of the administrative dispute.

All alleged violations described in this 26FC:0032-1 occurred on or before November 10, 2025. Complainant originally attempted to submit this portion of the complaint on this day, but the filing did not reach IPIB, as Complainant inadvertently sent his complaint to the incorrect email address.

In 26FC:0032-2, Complainant submitted a Chapter 22 request on November 17, 2025, seeking police investigative records held by the Fort Dodge Police Department in relation to a burglary reported by Complainant a month prior to the request. Respondent released a four-page case file on the reported burglary, including the date and time, the location, the name of the responding officer, the identities of individuals taken into custody, and basic information about the nature of the alleged crime. Complainant alleges he did not receive other records sought in his request, including body-worn camera footage, written or audio statements, and supplemental narratives. On December 8, 2025, the County Attorney confirmed that his office would not be proceeding with prosecution, though Complainant would be able to pursue the other party in civil court.

Based on this response, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0032-2, alleging that Respondent had misapplied Iowa Code § 22.7(5) to withhold additional responsive records from the investigative file once the County Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute and the investigation was closed. Complainant also alleged an unreasonable delay of over ten days before the original Chapter 22 request was acknowledged, as Respondent only replied to the request on December 8, twenty-one days later (which was also when records were released).

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, 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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

“The [Iowa Public Information Board] shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A providing for the timing, form, content, and means by which any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of this state, the attorney general, or any county attorney may file a complaint with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22. The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. All complaints filed with the board shall be public records.” Iowa Code § 23.7.

Analysis

1. 26FC:0032-1

Iowa Code § 23.7(1) limits IPIB’s ability to consider complaints filed more than sixty days from the time of an alleged violation or, where applicable, the time the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. Because all relevant alleged violations for this portion of the complaint were known to Complainant at the time of the original attempted filing on November 10, 2025, 77 days prior to the time the complaint was submitted on January 26, 2026, 26FC:0032-1 falls outside Iowa Code § 23.7’s sixty-day statute of limitations. This would be true despite the fact that the failure to file on time was accidental, as the error was based on Complainant’s use of an incorrect email address, rather than an issue with IPIB’s receipt of an otherwise properly filed complaint.

To the extent that the statute of limitations could be excused for any portion of 26FC:0032-1, the allegations described would be outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction, as potential inconsistencies found in the contents of public records (e.g. inaccuracies in the disputed meter data) are beyond the scope of Chapter 22.

2. 26FC:0032-2

In the second half of the complaint, which was properly filed within Iowa Code § 23.7’s sixty-day window, Complainant alleges that portions of the investigative file associated with the October burglary were improperly withheld, as the County Attorney’s decision not to prosecute meant that “the case [wa]s no longer exempt from disclosure as an ‘active’ criminal investigation.” However, as the Iowa Supreme Court held in Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, the “ongoing investigation” language from Iowa Code § 22.7(5) applies only to the third listed item in the exception (“specific portions of electronic mail and telephone billing records of law enforcement agencies”), while the “investigative reports” remain confidential regardless of timing. 926 N.W.2d 222, 231-32 (Iowa 2019) (“[w]e hold that police investigative reports do not lose their confidential status under section 22.7(5) when the investigation closes”).

As provided by the second sentence of Iowa Code § 22.7(5), confidentiality for police investigative files generally does not extend to the “date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding a crim or incident.” In this case, the four-page case file released to Complainant satisfied this disclosure obligation, and Respondent was not required to provide additional records like body-camera footage or supplemental narratives in order to fulfill the request. Complainant also did not allege any additional facts which would support additional disclosure under the Iowa Supreme Court’s Mitchell/Hawk Eye precedent.

Although other areas of the law, including judicial discovery, could provide alternative routes to access based on Complainant’s particular relationship to the underlying incident, this would be outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 22, which applies to same to all requesters.

Complainant also alleged unreasonable delay, based on Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d). However, as the Iowa Supreme Court held in Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, the timeline provided by this section is specific to the determination of “whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so,” and reasonable delay is otherwise determined by the “size and nature” of the request. 834 N.W.2d 444, 462 (Iowa 2013). For this request, which was submitted the week before the Thanksgiving holiday and fulfilled the week after, a twenty-one-day delay does not present a facial violation, even if best practice might have been to send the initial acknowledgement earlier.

Conclusion

Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.

Because Formal Complaint 26FC:0032-1 was filed more than sixty days from the time the alleged violations occurred and inaccuracies within public records are beyond the scope of Chapter 22, IPIB lacks jurisdiction to consider the first half of the complaint on its merits.

Formal Complaint 26FC:0032-2, meanwhile, is legally insufficient on facial review, as Iowa Code § 22.7(5) provided confidentiality for the remaining portions of the investigative file beyond the “immediate facts and circumstances” which were properly disclosed.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 26FC:0032 is dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction and legally insufficient pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).

Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.”  The IPIB will review this Order on March 19, 2026.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on March 13, 2026, to:

Steve Hebert, Complainant