26FC:0102 Jaden Smith v. Nevada Public Safety Department - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

 COMES NOW, Johnathon T. Harris, Staff Attorney for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report: 

On April 10, 2026, Jaden Smith (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0102, alleging Nevada Public Safety Department (Respondent)   violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

IPIB accepted this Complaint on May 21, 2026.

Facts

On April 7, 2026, Complainant was denied a request for public records by Respondent. Complainant’s request was for body-worn camera footage related to a law enforcement incident involving the death of a minor child. Respondent’s denial stated “I am in receipt of your records request. This case is still in the court process and subject to an active status. No records are able to be released at this time.” Complainant asserts two violations with regard to this denial. First, Complainant seeks a reversal of the denial overall and the release of the requested body-worn camera footage. Second Complainant states that the substance of the denial is statutorily insufficient under Iowa Code Chapter 22 in that Chapter 22 requires a greater degree of specificity as to the specific statutory provisions allowing the withholding of public records.

IPIB staff opened this complaint on April 16, 2026. On May 14, 2026, Respondent responded with a statement. Respondent provided more context to the records request. Specifically, Respondent stated that the records requested were associated with a recent a high-profile law enforcement action involving two specific individuals. Respondent then provided a fuller explanation of the legal basis they are asserting behind their denial to produce the footage requested. Respondent stated records associated with those suspects were not subject to release under Iowa Code § 22.7(5). The main reason provided by Respondent was related to the ongoing nature of the investigation. Specifically, Respondent stated that sentencing in the case had not been held and no final judgment had been entered in the case. Respondent also correctly cited the balancing test from Hawk Eye v. Jackson, in weighing whether police investigative records should be released. See 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994). Respondent argued that the factors in Hawk Eye as interpreted through IPIB advisory opinions support the position that disclosure while the case is still pending is not required. See id.

Complainant never provided a rebuttal to Respondent’s position. Complainant was asked if they wished to provide any additional statements on May 19, 2026 and IPIB staff has, as of this opinion being drafted, received no further information from Complainant.

Since receiving this information from the parties, sentencing in these cases has occurred. The two individual persons who were the subject of body-worn camera footage requested in this case were convicted. 

Applicable Law

“The following pubic 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, 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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

“[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.” 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). 

Analysis

IPIB Advisory Opinion 24AO:0014: Is a government body required to produce bodycam video and lifeguard statements in response to a public record request pursuant to Chapter 22?, is on point. In that case, the public records request was related to an investigation into the tragic death of a minor child at a public swimming pool. Specifically, the advisory opinion considered whether the body camera footage from that incident was subject to disclosure. 

To begin, body-worn camera footage of a law enforcement action is unambiguously part of the peace officer investigative report. See Klein v. Iowa Public Information Board, 968 N.W.2d 220, 222 (Iowa 2021) (Finding the 911 call, body camera video, and dash camera video were part of the peace officers’ investigative reports and thus were confidential records under § 22.7(5)). However, simply being part of the investigative report does not alone create total confidentiality. The Iowa Supreme Court has held that peace officer’s investigative reports are subjected to a qualified privilege of confidentiality, not a categorical one. See Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W. 2d 222 (Iowa 2019). 

In order to determine whether the privilege applies a balancing test is used that weighs the interests in confidentiality of police investigations against the liberal thrust of the rules in favor of disclosure. “In addition to demonstrating the public record is part of a peace officer investigative report, ‘[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.’” 24AO:0014: Is a government body required to produce bodycam video and lifeguard statements in response to a public record request pursuant to Chapter 22?, IPIB, (Jan. 14, 2025) (quoting 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)). 

The first two elements of the balancing test are met in that the records being requested are those created by a public officer and the recording was made during a confidential investigation. The question now is whether the public interest would suffer by disclosure. In order to determine whether the public interest would suffer from disclosure, several factors must be weighed. These include whether the records contain confidential informants, if there is are named but innocent suspects in the records, the presence of hearsay, rumor or libelous comment, whether the investigation is ongoing, and whether the investigation involves a matter of public interest and debate such as a police shooting or police misconduct. 24AO:0014: Is a government body required to produce bodycam video and lifeguard statements in response to a public record request pursuant to Chapter 22?, IPIB, (Jan. 14, 2025).

In 24AO:0014, IPIB determined the factors weighed in favor of confidentiality. Specifically, the body-worn camera footage that was the subject of the records request likely showed a minor child receiving critical medical care and revealed their partially unclothed body, the investigation was ongoing, and there was not a matter of public interest or debate such as a police shooting or improper cover-up presented in the records sought. Additionally, IPIB specifically stated that “there is potential harm attached to the release of the Video due to significant privacy interests involving the minor child and the minor child’s family. There is also potential harm to the general public in releasing graphic and sensitive images.” id. Therefore, IPIB found that the balancing test, based on the facts presented, weighed in favor of confidentiality. 

In the present case many of the same factors are present. Here the law enforcement action also involves the death of a minor child, specifically an infant. In this case the infant was also taken to the hospital. There is additionally no matter of public interest or debate in this instance such as an allegation of police misconduct. These factors, particularly the potential harm related to the privacy of the family of victim and the potentially graphic and sensitive images in record, weigh in favor of confidentiality. 

However, the present case differs from 24AO:0014 as well. Namely, the investigation has been completed and sentencing has been carried out in this case. However, the court has been clear that the ongoing nature of an investigation is merely one factor in determining confidentiality and is not alone dispositive. See Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019) (“We hold that police investigative reports do not lose their confidential status under section 22.7(5) when the investigation closes.”). There are additionally no claims of other special areas of confidentiality, such as confidential informants, being present in the records. These factors weigh in favor of disclosure.

In looking at all of the factors together, IPIB precedent leans in favor of confidentiality in this case. Most importantly, the similarities between 24AO:0014’s decision relating to the privacy and potentially graphic nature of body-worn camera footage related to the death of a child are persuasive in this matter. The facts of the criminal case that the records sought are the subject of are disturbing and graphic. While IPIB has not had the chance to actually review the footage sought, it is likely that it contains some of the same kind of private and graphic material related to the death of a minor child that was found in 24AO:0014. Therefore, because, on balance, the disclosure of the peace officer investigative report records requested by Complainant would cause the public interest to suffer by their release, Respondent may maintain its confidentiality and not provide the records to Complainant per Complainant’s request.

Second is the matter of whether Respondent provided a legally sufficient reason for the lack of disclosure. However, there is no provision of Iowa Chapter 22 relating to how detailed or specific a denial of a public records request must be. While the governmental body does bear the ultimate burden in litigation for showing compliance with Chapter 22, there is simply not the kind of requirement for details or specificity that Complainant suggests under Iowa Chapter 22. See Iowa Code § 22.10(2) (describing defendant’s burden when a party seeks judicial enforcement of Chapter 22). That being said, Respondent should take notice that an ongoing criminal court case alone does not automatically mean that police investigative records are per se confidential and Respondent must make sure that they have a sufficient legal basis for denials of records requests in the future, even when those records are part of an active police investigation. See Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019) (Finding police investigative records were not confidential, over defendant’s argument that the records could taint the potential jury pool).

Because on balance the public interest would likely be harmed by disclosure, Respondent is within their rights to choose to maintain the confidentiality of the requested peace officer investigative report records.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report: 

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.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

Because Respondent is within their rights to determine the records requested require confidentiality to prevent public harm, there is insufficient evidence to find probable cause that a violation of Chapter 22 occurred and it is recommended the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Staff Attorney:

_________________________

Johnathon T. Harris, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Jaden Smith

Nevada Public Safety Department

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 July 16, 2026, to:

Jaden Smith, Complainant

Nevada Public Safety Department, Respondent