26FC:0093 Vendetta CeCe-Jackowiak v. Davenport Police Department - 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 March 27, 2026, Vendetta CeCe-Jackowiak (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0093-1, alleging that the Davenport Police Department (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22. On April 21, 2026, a second, related complaint was filed and joined as 26FC:0093-2.

                                                                         Facts                                                 

On March 12, 2026, Complainant submitted a Chapter 22 request through the City of Davenport’s online request portal, seeking seven categories of records related to a November 2025 traffic stop, which resulted in Complainant’s arrest and multiple criminal charges. This request included personnel and employment records for the officers involved, investigative file records related to her criminal case, and policies and procedures relevant to the incident. Complainant has also filed at least one other Chapter 22 request during the same period relating to the same arrest incident.

On March 27, 2026, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0093-1, alleging unreasonable delay in responding to the request. On March 31, 2026, however, Respondent uploaded several documents for Complainant’s review through the online portal, including over two dozen responsive records, a confidentiality explanation for certain information which had been withheld, and an additional record created in response to the request which provided the involved officers’ date of hire, rank at the time of incident, and assignments. Respondent noted that a few portions of the request were still pending in their summary document.

On April 3, 2026, Complainant acknowledged receipt of the records and amended 26FC:0093-1, alleging that Respondent’s assertion of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) had been overbroad, as confidentiality exceptions needed to be narrowly construed, and that the protection for personnel records needed to be balanced against the “significantly heightened” public interest in identifying possible patterns which could be found in disciplinary histories.

Following initial production, Respondent notified Complainant that there would be a $167.75 fee due for the remainder of the request. On April 21, 2026, Complainant requested a full waiver of the fee, citing a “clear and compelling public interest” because the request was non-commercial and “likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and activities,” including furtherance of civil rights and public accountability. In support of this position, Complainant offered citations to US Supreme Court cases addressing the public interest waiver in federal FOIA litigation.

After Respondent denied this request for fee waiver, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0093-2 the same day, alleging constructive denial of the records request on the grounds that the request for fee waiver based on public interest had been improperly denied and the fee imposed created an inequitable barrier to access in light of Complainant’s disability status and income.

Applicable Law

“Although fulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of reasonable expenses, the lawful custodian shall make every reasonable effort to provide the public record requested at no cost other than copying costs for a record which takes less than thirty minutes to produce. In the event expenses are necessary, such expenses shall be reasonable and communicated to the request upon receipt of the request.” Iowa Code § 22.3(1).

“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:

11. a. 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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a).

Analysis

1. Formal Complaint 26FC:0093-1

Complainant has seemingly dropped the initial allegation of unreasonable delay. To the extent it is still asserted, thirteen business days passed between the initial request and the fulfillment of the majority of the request (aside from the remainder covered by the fee estimate). Given the size and nature of the seven-part request, this cannot be considered unreasonable for the purposes of facial review, particularly given the additional steps taken to explain confidentiality and create an additional record with further disclosure. See Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 462 (Iowa 2013).

Once records were released, Complainant argued instead for the release of internal investigation and disciplinary records, which Respondent had withheld to the extent that they existed. This argument cited Chapter 22’s “broad presumption in favor of public access” and various policy-based concerns about ensuring “[p]ublic oversight be meaningful–not merely symbolic” and the “significantly heightened” public interest in disclosure which arises “when government conduct reflects a pattern or practice,” in reference to the possibility that officers involved in Complainant’s arrest might have notable disciplinary histories. Across multiple AI-generated briefings, Complainant also discussed the relevance of this information to federal civil rights litigation, citing use of pattern evidence in establishing systemic violations of the rights of citizens.

None of these arguments have any bearing on Chapter 22 confidentiality. As the Iowa Supreme Court held in ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atlantic Community School District, Iowa Code § 22.7(11) is a “categorical” confidentiality exception, which does not require a balancing test and is not subject to narrow construction. 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Iowa 2012) (“where the legislature has used broadly inclusive language in the exception, we do not mechanically apply the narrow-construction rule”) (quoting DeLaMater v. Marion Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 554 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Iowa 1996)). In this case, the records Complainant is seeking are clearly personal information in confidential personnel records, analogous to the disciplinary records the ACLU Court held were protected as “in-house job performance documents exempt from disclosure.” Id. at 235 (quoting Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. Recs. v. Des Moines Reg. & Tribune, 467 N.W.2d 666, 669 (Iowa 1992)). The hypothetical possibility that confidential records may establish the existence of a pattern of misconduct or civil rights violations would not affect this.

2. Formal Complaint 26FC:0093-2

Complainant has subsequently challenged Respondent’s decision to charge a $167.75 fee as constructive denial of the Chapter 22 request. For this portion of the complaint, Complainant has not alleged that the fee estimate exceeds actual, direct costs permitted by Iowa Code § 22.3, but rather that Respondent’s denial of her fee waiver request was unreasonable.

In another AI-generated briefing, Complainant references Horsfield Materials to argue that “Chapter 22 must be liberally construed in favor of access,” and her status as a disabled veteran with a fixed income through Social Security Disability Insurance makes this $167.75 fee “a disproportionate and inequitable burden,” as it limits her “ability to access public records due to financial and health-related constraints.” While Complainant recognizes that Chapter 22 does not actually include any fee waiver requirement, she asserts that such a waiver is implicit in light of the chapter’s purpose. Complainant also argues public interest in the availability of these records, which she says “concern public accountability and civil rights implications,” with citations to federal court opinions interpreting public waiver under the Freedom of Information Act.

As Complainant has acknowledged, Chapter 22 does not contain any fee waiver provision, and no court interpreting the chapter has ever found that one is implied, whether based on public interest or the financial circumstances of individual requesters. Although Complainant is correct that Chapter 22 favors public access to government records, Iowa Code § 22.3(1) and (2) permit a government body to charge reasonable fees, based on the actual, direct costs of fulfilling a request. Respondent’s decision to impose fees permitted by statute despite the requested fee waiver cannot be considered a constructive denial of the request.

The significant majority of emails received in connection with both halves of this complaint were AI-generated, asserting legal arguments with no legitimate basis in statute or judicial interpretation. Given the character of these communications and the underlying dispute between the parties, it appears these complaints are being submitted in retaliation, rather than being good-faith allegations describing potential violations of Chapter 22.

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.

Dismissal is appropriate, as the disputed category of records are facially entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(11) (26FC:0093-1) and Chapter 22 does not require a fee waiver based on public interest or a requester’s financial circumstances (26FC:0093-2).

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 26FC:0093 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient, frivolous, and without merit 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 May 21, 2026. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Executive Director,

_________________________

Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on May 6, 2026, to:

Vendetta CeCe-Jackowiak, Complainant