26FC:0139 Dan McReavy v. Iowa Department of Public Safety - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Special Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On May 26, 2026, Dan McReavy filed formal complaint 26FC:0139, alleging the Iowa Department of Public Safety [“Department”] violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on June 18, 2026.

Facts

On April 24, 2026, Complainant submitted a public records request to the Department for audio and video recording and “telemetry data” related to a traffic stop involving Complainant as well as all video for a period of 20 minutes before his traffic stop and 20 minutes after his traffic stop. He followed up on May 14, 2026, and was told his request had been flagged as a phishing attempt, but the Department would look into the request. On May 20, 2026, the Department notified the Complainant they would not provide the requested records because the Complainant had a pending open case regarding the traffic violation. Complainant alleges this is an improper withholding of a public record and a violation of Chapter 22. He filed a formal complaint against the Department. Special counsel was appointed on June 29, 2026, following acceptance of the complaint for investigation.

On July 15, 2026, three video records from the traffic stop involving Complainant were provided to Complainant as part of the court’s discovery process regarding the traffic stop and citation.

These videos included the officer’s bodycam, dashcam and interior squad car footage. The Department confirmed there was no radio traffic associated with the traffic stop and provided a copy of the call for service to resolve the matter.

Complainant stated he had not received any other video records nor any of his requests for “telemetry” documents. After clarification, he stated the requested telemetry data documents included: 1.) the Make, Model and Year of the trooper's vehicle; 2) Radar internal logs or audit data, if retained; 3) calibration certificates; 4) Daily tuning-fork and beginning/end of shift testing records; 5) The officer's training records for the specific radar - and its make and model; and 6) Any and all MDT/CAD timestamps associated with the stop.

The Department provided all existing information and documents related to this request except for the videos and employee training records, which the Department withheld as confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(11).

Complainant claims he should receive the requested records because they are relevant, contain exculpatory evidence, and he is owed the information because he has been criminally charged. As this is a complaint regarding his public records request the determination regarding his request is considered only under Iowa Code chapter 22.

Applicable Law

Iowa Code defines a public record to include all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to the government body. (Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a)). Iowa Code also identifies types of public records that are exempt from disclosure due to confidentiality. Listed among these exemptions are peace officers’ investigative reports. (Iowa Code § 22.7(5)). Additionally, under Iowa Code § 22.7(11), 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 may also be withheld as confidential records.

Analysis

Video and audio recordings provided to Complainant

Complainant sought video and audio records related to the traffic stop concerning himself and for a period before and after his involvement. The Department’s position is that the dash and body camera footage are exempt from public record disclosure pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Although the records are exempt from disclosure as public records, on July 15, 2026, video records related to Complainant’s traffic stop were provided to Complainant as part of the discovery process in the active court case regarding the citation. Recordings for the period before or after his traffic stop were not provided.

Under Iowa Code § 22.7(5), all of these recordings could be withheld as confidential as part of a police investigative file if the Hawk Eye balancing test determines confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information as a public record. See Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994).

Existing case law has demonstrated the ongoing nature of an investigation weighs in favor of confidentiality in determining whether the public interest would suffer from disclosure as a public record at this stage. This is true when there are claims of use of officer force or officer misconduct that would “tilt the scales in favor of public disclosure.” Id. at 753. Complainant sought police investigative videos of not only his traffic stop, but all stops before and after his for a period of time. The Department provided Complainant a copy of the recordings related to his stop through the court’s discovery process. In an effort to resolve this complaint, the Department also provided a copy of the citation issued prior to Complainant’s as well as video related to the traffic stop.1 Complainant states there is a public interest in ascertaining the fidelity of the officer's conduct and the merits of the traffic stop and charge he has filed against the Complainant. There is no public interest, however, that would be served under these facts by disclosing other individuals’ traffic stops as public records. Complainant has been advised to use the discovery process to obtain additional information that would be relevant to the court case.

While the Department should have made their balancing test review a bit more explicit when responding to the open records request, the Department has responded to Complainant’s public records request. The Department provided relevant, confidential information to him through the discovery process in the trial court proceedings rather than providing the recordings as a public record. The Department also provided documents from a traffic case from the same general time and area that had been concluded even though it could have been retained as confidential to assist in resolution of this matter as Complainant sought the information for his upcoming jury trial. The remaining video records are confidential public records under Iowa Code § 22.7(5).

There is no violation of Chapter 22. See 24FC:0055, Chandler Trautwein/Marshalltown Police Department - Dismissal Order (“The City has responded to Mr. Trautwein’s public records request and has attempted to work with Mr. Trautwein to provide the confidential information to him through the trial court proceedings rather than providing the recordings as a public record. For this reason, there is no violation of Chapter 22.”)

“Telemetry Data” Records

Complainant’s initial records request sought all “telemetry data generated by” the specific Iowa State Trooper involved. After clarification, Complainant stated these documents included: 1.) the Make, Model and Year of the trooper's vehicle; 2) Radar internal logs or audit data, if retained; 3) calibration certificates; 4) Daily tuning-fork and beginning/end of shift testing records; 5) The officer's training records for the specific radar - and its make and model; and 6) Any and all MDT/CAD timestamps associated with the stop. The Department responded with what documents existed, provided the existing information and documents related to this request. The Department withheld the employee training records as confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(11). (The Department stated the MDT/CAD timestamps were previously disclosed.) 

The withheld records included the “officer's training records for the specific radar.” Training records of identified or identifiable employees are confidential as a public record under Iowa Code § 22.7(11). See 24FC:0069, William Vandenberg/Lee County - Dismissal Order (“The information the complainant seeks – ‘[f]irearm qualifications training for each deputy . . . to include officer, date, and weapon system trained on’ and ‘[a]nnual training documentation . . . to include officer, training course name, and training hours per each course’ – is particular to the identified or identifiable officers who completed the training, and training data belongs to the category of records which would naturally be included with confidential personnel files for individual employees.”)

The information and/or records that existed were provided to Complainant upon clarification of what was being sought as “telemetry data” or were properly withheld as a confidential records under Iowa Code § 22.7(11), therefore, there is no violation of Chapter 22.

IPIB Action

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

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
   1. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
   2. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
   3. 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

Complainant received responsive videos as part of the discovery process in his open court case and all other existing documents have been provided or properly withheld as confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7. The Complainant received more than was required under Iowa Code chapter

22. There is no violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. Because there is no violation, it is recommended the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By Special Counsel,