“Body cameras were sold to the public in Iowa and elsewhere primarily as a means for greater public oversight of police, especially at a time when trust in law enforcement regarding racial profiling and excessive use of force was at an all-time high.
“Body camera footage never clearly fell within any existing definition of a confidential record under Chapter 22. That’s why back in 2015 when they were first starting to be adopted by Iowa law enforcement, we warned that there was a risk law enforcement would try to shoehorn them into existing exceptions in Chapter 22, threatening government transparency more broadly. That’s why we supported body camera adoption, but only with thoughtful legislation that would appropriately balance the public interest in disclosure in cases like this one, when there is a police use of force or other incident in which the public’s interest in disclosure is high, versus the cases when disclosure would pose a risk to privacy.
“Unfortunately, that worry has now come to pass. Year after year, the legislature has failed to tackle the need for separate body camera legislation, and now, the IPIB’s recent decision improperly tells law enforcement across the state that it is okay to keep body camera footage secret. With this decision, body cameras become an unregulated tool for police surveillance of the public, with little to no public oversight of police by the public in return.
“The legislature should act to pass body camera legislation, and in the meantime, we need our courts to return the state of affairs around police records to a rational place in accord with the intentions of Chapter 22, which existed long before body cameras hit the scene.
“This case also presents the important legal issue of whether police investigative reports may remain confidential in perpetuity, long after the investigation is no longer ongoing, and without any consideration of the public interest in disclosure of the reports.”