Klein v. Iowa Pub. Info. Bd.
| Decision Date | 30 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-0657,20-0657 |
| Parties | Adam KLEIN, Appellant, v. IOWA PUBLIC INFORMATION BOARD, Appellee, Burlington Police Department and Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigations, Intervenors–Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Nicholas D. Ott of Ott Law DSM, Des Moines, Rita Bettis Austen (argued) and Shefali Aurora of ACLU of Iowa Foundation, Inc., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Emily Willits (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Iowa Public Information Board.
Holly A. Corkery (argued) of Lynch Dallas, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for intervenor–appellee Burlington Police Department.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeffrey C. Peterzalek, Assistant Attorney General, for intervenor–appellee Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigations.
Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. McDermott, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
This open records case arising out of a tragic shooting requires us to interpret and apply the Iowa Public Information Board Act. The legislature adopted that act less than a decade ago, in 2012. It has not previously been before us.
In 2015, a police officer responding to a 911 call about a domestic assault accidentally shot and killed one of the participants. This incident led to a civil lawsuit and a substantial monetary settlement for the victim's family. It also prompted open records requests.
Dissatisfied with the responses to his open records requests, the family's attorney filed a complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board relying on the 2012 legislation. The Board appointed a special prosecutor to handle the case and, after much procedural maneuvering, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a contested case hearing in 2018. Following the hearing, in which the family's attorney did not participate, the Board declined to order the disclosure of any records that had not previously been disclosed. The family's attorney petitioned for judicial review, and the district court dismissed the petition based on lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The family's attorney now appeals.
On our review, we conclude that the family's attorney exhausted administrative remedies by filing his complaint with the Board. However, we caution that on judicial review, the family's attorney may only pursue open records requests that were actually raised before the Board and decided by it. Also, the family's attorney does not have standing to seek the production of records that are now publicly available. For these reasons, we affirm the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
A. The Accidental Shooting of Autumn Steele. On January 6, 2015, Officer Jesse Hill of the Burlington Police Department (BPD) responded to a 911 call from Gabriel Steele, reporting a domestic assault involving his wife, Autumn Steele, and advising she had been arrested the previous day. When Officer Hill arrived, Gabriel was leaving the home, holding a child in his arms. Autumn was following close behind, hitting Gabriel. Officer Hill tried to separate the two. A German shepherd dog owned by the Steeles growled at Officer Hill and bit him on the leg. Officer Hill fired his sidearm intending to shoot the dog. He accidentally shot Autumn instead. Autumn died from her injuries.
After an investigation, the Des Moines County Attorney declined to bring criminal charges against Officer Hill. The Steele family hired an attorney, Adam Klein, to represent them in civil matters related to the shooting. The Steele family filed a civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the BPD and Officer Hill in 2016. On June 18, 2018, the family announced a settlement in that case for $2 million in damages.
B. Klein's Open Records Request. On February 27, 2015, the Des Moines County Attorney released a seven-page letter describing her factual and legal review of the incident and explaining her decision not to bring criminal charges against Officer Hill.
Later that same day, Klein submitted open records requests pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 22 to the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), the BPD, and the Des Moines County Attorney. He asked for "any and all public records regarding the Incident, including, but not limited to" certain specific types of records. In response, the DCI disclosed the same information it had already released to the media—the county attorney's letter, press releases, and a link to a twelve-second snippet from Officer Hill's bodycam footage. The DCI declined to provide additional records.
The BPD, in its response, turned over another copy of the county attorney's letter. In addition, it provided personnel information about Officer Hill and information about another dog encounter involving Officer Hill that had been referenced in the county attorney's letter. The BPD declined to provide additional records, asserting the confidentiality privilege for "[p]eace officers’ investigative reports" set forth in Iowa Code section 22.7(5) (2015).
The Autumn Steele shooting had generated significant publicity. Around that time, others also served public records requests, including the Burlington Hawk Eye newspaper.
C. Klein's Complaint with the Public Information Board. On May 15, Klein filed a complaint against the BPD, the DCI, and the Des Moines County Attorney with the Iowa Public Information Board. The complaint recited Klein's requests and the responses received from the BPD, the DCI, and the county attorney. Klein requested that the Board "[f]ind that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure under Iowa Code § 22.7(5)" and "[o]rder Respondents to fully disclose all records." The complaint further asked that the respondents be required to reimburse his attorney fees and pay civil penalties. See Iowa Code § 22.10. Meanwhile, the Burlington Hawk Eye newspaper also filed a complaint with the Board seeking similar materials. The complaints of Klein and the Hawk Eye were eventually consolidated.
Normally, the Board makes an initial determination as to whether the complaint, "on its face," is within the Board's jurisdiction and "could have merit." Id. § 23.8(1). If that determination is favorable, the Board accepts the complaint and then works with the parties to resolve the complaint informally. See id. § 23.9. If that is unsuccessful, the Board initiates a formal investigation, following which it makes another assessment on jurisdiction and determines whether probable cause exists to believe a violation of law has occurred. See id. § 23.10(1). If so, the Board "shall commence a contested case proceeding under chapter 17A against the respondent." Id. § 23.10(3)(a ).
This case did not take a normal path. The respondents sent letters to the Board seeking dismissal of Klein's complaint. On July 14, the executive director of the Board prepared a preliminary order for dismissal stating that "the information in question appears to be confidential." That order was not adopted by the Board. In September, Klein and the respondents submitted briefs addressing the merits of the complaint. Then, in December, the Board's deputy director lodged a report stating there was no probable cause to believe a violation had occurred. That report was not adopted by the Board either.
D. The Special Prosecutor's Petition. On May 27, 2016, the Board filed a petition against the BPD, the DCI, and the county attorney through its appointed special prosecutor to begin a contested case. But on September 2, an ALJ granted the DCI's and the BPD's motions to dismiss the petition without prejudice because the Board had failed to make a finding of probable cause and jurisdiction as required by statute. See id. § 23.10(1).
In response to the ALJ's notice of dismissal, on October 27, the Board entered an order determining that Klein's complaint was within the Board's jurisdiction and that there was probable cause to believe the respondents had "withheld public records as defined therein in response to Complainant's request, including, but not limited to, police audio records, body camera videos, and 911 calls1 that were subject to disclosure under Iowa Code chapter 22." The order was captioned, "In re the Matter of: Adam Klein, complainant ...."2 The Board once again appointed the same special prosecutor to initiate a contested case.
E. Proceedings Before the ALJ. The BPD and the DCI moved for summary judgment in the contested case. After lengthy proceedings, the motions were ultimately denied by the ALJ on December 4, 2017.
Meanwhile, the Steele family's federal civil suit was still ongoing. Previously, the federal court had entered a protective order allowing records to be produced to the parties for purposes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial