The Public Nature of Use of Force Reports: Expanding Access to Factual Police Records

Introduction

In the case of Harvey L. Harrison, Appellee, v. Lisa Mickey, in her official capacity as Open Records Coordinator, and City of Des Moines, Iowa, Appellant, the Supreme Court of Iowa was confronted with the question of whether the routinely generated police use of force reports are subject to public disclosure under the Iowa Open Records Act. The contentious legal debate centered on whether these reports, produced after every instance when an officer uses force, are protected as confidential personnel records under the exemption in Iowa Code § 22.7(11). The case arose after retired attorney and nonprofit founder Harvey Harrison, representing constituents keen to scrutinize police practices regarding force, submitted an open records request seeking access to 387 individual reports from the year 2020. The City of Des Moines argued that such documents are inherently confidential as they could be interpreted as self-review or performance evaluations that may trigger internal disciplinary processes.

The central issue, therefore, was balancing the public's right to know the facts of police conduct against the need to maintain a degree of privacy for public employees in matters of personnel performance. The court’s determination in this case yields a significant precedent regarding disclosure obligations and the understanding of “public records” in the context of use of force documentation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Harrison. The Court held that the use of force reports filed by Des Moines police officers are not “confidential personnel records” as envisaged by the exemption in Iowa Code § 22.7(11). Instead, the reports are factual in nature—a straightforward account of the incident including essential details such as date, time, location, and the events that took place. Although the reports are later reviewed by supervisors and may inform disciplinary decisions in a very small percentage of cases, the initial record, authored by the officer, does not serve as an evaluative document or a self-review.

The Court further invalidated the City’s reliance on alternative exemptions, including those contained in Iowa Code section 80F.1(20), concluding that these did not apply to routine use of force reports. Overall, the judgment requires that the City disclose the 387 reports from 2020, subject only to permissible redactions for certain sensitive information such as data regarding officer injuries.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Throughout the opinion, the Court referenced an array of precedents that have shaped the jurisprudence in open records cases:

Des Moines Independent Community School District Public Records v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co. (487 N.W.2d 666) – This landmark case established that documents which primarily involve evaluations of job performance or disciplinary records can be shielded under the confidential personnel records exemption. However, the Court distinguished this case by noting that use of force reports are different in that they are fact-based narratives.
DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Service Commission (554 N.W.2d 875) – Here, the Court applied a balancing test to reveal that raw test scores, devoid of evaluative commentary, are not protected. This reasoning helped bolster the argument that factual use of force reports should similarly fall outside the protective ambit of confidentiality.
Clymer v. City of Cedar Rapids (601 N.W.2d 42) – This decision clarified that while certain personal details about employees (e.g., birthdates, gender, addresses) are shielded, information concerning compensation or performance-related data that do not expose sensitive personal data can be disclosed. The Court used this reasoning to assert that use of force reports do not contain such evaluative personal data.
ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atlantic Community School District (818 N.W.2d 231) – This precedent emphasized that disciplinary records are covered by the exemption when they pertain to internal evaluations; however, it reinforced the distinction between factual incident reports and post-incident personnel evaluations.
Additional authorities from other jurisdictions (Texas, New York, Wisconsin, and Arkansas) were also cited, thereby buttressing the view that use of force reports should be treated as administrative, factual documents rather than evaluative personnel records.

Legal Reasoning

At the core of the Court’s decision is a precise statutory interpretation of the Iowa Open Records Act and its associated exceptions. The reasoning unfolded along several key lines:

Nature of the Reports: The Court emphasized that the use of force reports are essentially chronological accounts detailing the events surrounding an incident. They are not created as a form of self-review or performance evaluation but are instead intended for accountability, trend-analysis, and the documentation of police actions.
Efficacy of the Personnel Records Exemption: While the exemption under Iowa Code § 22.7(11) was designed to protect personal information in confidential personnel records, the Court found that the factual data contained within use of force reports did not fall within this category. The reports’ primary function is the documentation of events rather than offering a commentary on an officer’s performance.
Alternative Exemptions: The City’s attempts to invoke protections under other sections—such as attorney work product doctrines initially and later the Peace Officer Bill of Rights under Iowa Code section 80F.1(20)—were rejected. The Court noted that these provisions did not apply as the reports were not prepared in anticipation of litigation or in response to specific allegations, but were standard operational documents.
Balancing Public Interest vs. Privacy: Consistent with other decisions, the Court highlighted that transparency in police activities is a vital component of public accountability. The minimal risk to officer privacy, particularly when reports could be redacted for sensitive medical or injury details, does not outweigh the public’s right to understand governmental operations.

Impact

This Judgment significantly impacts future cases and policies regarding open records in several ways:

Precedent for Access to Factual Records: By distinguishing between factual reporting and evaluative records, the decision reinforces a liberal policy of transparency whereby administrative records that do not involve direct performance appraisals must be made available to the public.
Guidance for Law Enforcement Agencies: Police departments across Iowa—and potentially other jurisdictions—may now have to reconsider the categorization of routine incident reports. Administrative systems that label such documents as confidential could face challenges, prompting changes in internal policies to align more closely with public disclosure mandates.
Broader Transparency and Accountability: In an era of heightened scrutiny of law enforcement activities, the ruling solidifies the principle that government records used for accountability, training, and trend analysis belong in the public domain. This decision encourages a more open dialogue and oversight of police practices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several complex legal ideas and statutory nuances are central to this case. Below is a breakdown of these concepts in simpler terms:

Use of Force Report: A document filled out by a police officer after an incident in which force is used. It simply describes what happened (who, what, where, and why) rather than judging whether the officer did well or badly.
Confidential Personnel Records Exemption: A legal exception that protects certain private information about public employees. The court made clear that this exemption is meant for records that evaluate an employee’s performance rather than mere descriptions of events.
Attorney Work Product and Investigation Report Exemptions: Categories of documents normally kept private because they involve legal strategy or sensitive investigative details. The Court ruled that use of force reports do not fit these categories because they are routine procedural documents.
Balancing Test: A legal method used by the Court to weigh the public’s right to know against the privacy rights of public employees. In this case, the factual nature of the reports tipped the scale in favor of disclosure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Iowa’s decision firmly establishes that police use of force reports, as factual and administrative records, are not shielded by the confidential personnel records exemption under Iowa Code § 22.7(11). This decision underscores the principle that transparency in government operations—particularly in matters concerning public safety and police accountability—must be maintained. By clarifying that the initial, factual narrative provided by officers does not constitute an evaluative or self-review document, the Court effectively broadens public access to important records that can foster oversight and drive policy reforms.

The ruling is a watershed moment in the interpretation of open records laws, setting a clear precedent that the nature and purpose of a document will determine its disclosure, not merely the context of its storage or any later evaluative comments. As such, this judgment is likely to influence both future legal challenges and the operational practices of law enforcement agencies, emphasizing the overriding public interest in government transparency.