Adam Klein v. Iowa Public Information Board and Burlington Police Department and Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigations

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 20–0657
Submitted October 20, 2021—Filed December 30, 2021
ADAM KLEIN,
Appellant,
vs.
IOWA PUBLIC INFORMATION BOARD,
Appellee,
BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT and IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS,
Intervenors–Appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha J.
Gronewald, Judge.
An individual seeking the release of law enforcement records appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his petition for judicial review of a decision of the
Iowa Public Information Board. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
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.
2
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.
3
MANSFIELD, Justice.
I. Introduction.
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
4
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.
II. Background Facts and Proceedings.
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
5
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
6
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
7
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.
The special prosecutor refiled his petition on November 4. In a section
labeled “Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue,” the petition identified the
complainants (Klein and the Hawk Eye) and their complaints. The petition
1The record refers at times to “a 911 call” and at other times to “all calls.” Our
understanding is that the initial 911 call has been made public but that there may be other 911
calls related to the incident. To be clear, our ruling in this case covers all 911 calls.
2A similar order was entered concerning the Hawk Eye’s complaint.
8
alleged that records showing “the date, time, specific location, and immediate
circumstances surrounding the . . . incident” had not been produced, and that
neither the bodycam videos nor the 911 calls were “peace officers’ investigative
reports.” It further alleged,
Among the public records that were requested but which
Respondents have wrongfully refused to produce are the following:
the recording and transcripts of 911 calls, bodycam videos taken by
the officers, videos taken by dashboard cameras, records showing
“the date, time, specific location, and immediate circumstances
surrounding the . . . incident,” and emails regarding the Autumn
Steele homicide from and to representatives of the City of Burlington
in correspondence with Autumn Steele’s family members.
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 that litigation only, without public
dissemination. After the federal case settled in June 2018, the Iowa Freedom of
Information Council filed a motion to unseal all court filings in that case. See
Steele v. City of Burlington, 334 F. Supp. 3d 972, 976 (S.D. Iowa 2018). The
federal court granted the motion in part, noting that “Defendants have not
articulated an independent basis for maintaining the confidentiality of the
officers’ body camera videos, Hill’s record of medical treatment, or DCI’s
investigative reports.” Id. at 983, 985–86. As a result, some of the records that
were the subject of the Board contested case became publicly available.
9
The Board contested case went to hearing on July 20, 2018. At the outset
of the hearing, the prosecutor requested to amend the petition to require the
BPD and the DCI to release the entire “DCI file” in light of the federal civil
settlement. In her proposed decision, the ALJ refused that request, noting that
“it would be unfair to expand the issues at the time of hearing.” However, the
ALJ concluded that “the 911 tape, the dashcam videos, and the bodycam videos
are not ‘confidential’ . . . even if they are later placed into a file labeled ‘peace
officer’s investigative report.’ ” Hence, the ALJ concluded that the BPD and the
DCI “failed to comply with Iowa Code Chapter 22 when they determined that all
records gathered as part of a criminal investigation, including the 911 call, the
body camera video, and the dash camera video, were confidential ‘peace officers’
investigative reports’ under Iowa Code section 22.7(5).” Finally, the ALJ
determined that the BPD and the DCI had disclosed the “date, time, specific
location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding [the] incident.”
See Iowa Code § 22.7(5).
F. The Intra-Agency Appeal by the BPD and the DCI, and the Position
Taken by the Special Prosecutor. The BPD and the DCI filed an intra-agency
appeal to the Board. In their briefs, the BPD and the DCI maintained that all
documents in the DCI investigative file, including the bodycam videos, the
dashcam videos, and the 911 calls, could be withheld as confidential
“investigative reports.” Id.
10
The prosecutor did not appeal the ALJ’s ruling. In responding to DCI’s
brief, the prosecutor summarized the scope of the dispute as follows:
The present case involves the record of a 911 call from a
person reporting the shooting, and bodycam and dashcam videos
received from the Burlington Police Department or, in the case of the
911 call, possibly from “Descom,” the Des Moines Communications
Center. The ALJ held that the disclosure of these items did not
threaten the communications made to the officer in “official
confidence” outlined in any of the three cases.
The special prosecutor argued that those items were not investigative
reports within the meaning of the statute because they “did not result from a
DCI investigation.” The special prosecutor urged that the ALJ’s ruling was
“correct and should be adopted by the Board.”
At the hearing before the Board, the special prosecutor reiterated that the
dispute was limited to the three items:
I endorse the proposed opinion that was made by the administrative
law judge who I think got everything right during the course of this
case, except for a couple of things . . . that I don’t agree with, but
certainly haven’t appealed. So, I’m defending her conclusion that
none of these items, these three items, these three discrete items . . .
are not investigative reports within the meaning of the statute.
G. The Board’s Final Decision. The Board issued its final decision on
February 21, 2019. In sum, the Board found that the BPD and the DCI had
“complied with Iowa Code chapter 22.” The Board’s final decision incorporated
the ALJ’s determination that the BPD and the DCI had met the requirement to
disclose “the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and
circumstances surrounding [the] incident” by providing the county attorney’s
letter. As noted, the special prosecutor had not contested that determination,
nor had it appealed the ALJ’s proposed decision.
11
On the issue that was contested, the Board overruled the ALJ’s ruling that
the BPD and the DCI had an obligation to release the bodycam video, the
dashcam video, and the 911 call or calls. The Board reasoned, “Under Iowa Code
section 22.7(5), the 911 call, the body camera video, and the dash camera video
were part of the confidential ‘peace officers’ investigative reports’ and not
required to be disclosed in response to a public records request.” Accordingly,
the Board dismissed the special prosecutor’s petition.3
Klein was on the service list for filings and orders in the contested case
proceeding. However, he did not intervene, make any filings under his name, or
appear at any of the status conferences or hearings.
H. The Current Judicial Proceeding. On March 22, Klein filed a petition
for judicial review in the Polk County District Court seeking to overturn the
Board’s final decision. In addition to reversal of the contested case decision,
Klein’s petition sought “all records Mr. Klein requested from the DCI . . . as well
as those records Mr. Klein requested from the [BPD],” a “declaratory ruling that
911 calls, bodycam video, and dashcam video are not ‘peace officers’ investigative
reports,’ ” a “declaratory ruling that peace officers’ investigative reports are only
potentially confidential so long as the investigation is ongoing,” and a
“declaratory ruling that even when deemed potentially confidential, peace
3The Board’s decision came out shortly before we decided Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids,
926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019). Mitchell arose out of a different officer-involved shooting and
addressed Iowa Code section 22.7(5). See id. at 224–25. There, we upheld a trial court order
directing the production of reports prepared within ninety-six hours of the incident, excluding
police internal review records. Id. at 225.
12
officers’ investigative reports . . . are subject to the Hawk Eye4 and Shanahan5
3-part balancing test to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the
government interest in nondisclosure.”
The BPD and the DCI intervened in the judicial review proceeding. The
Board moved to dismiss Klein’s petition, raising three arguments: “(1) [the
petition] improperly combines a petition for judicial review with a petition for
declaratory relief; (2) Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies; and
(3) Petitioner lacks standing.” The district court agreed with the first point and,
on July 15, dismissed Klein’s declaratory relief claims. The court explained,
[The petitioner] is seeking both appellate review of the [Board]’s Final
Decision as well as asking the Court to exercise original authority to
make certain declaratory rulings. . . . As the Court in Black [v.
University of Iowa, 362 N.W.2d 459, 462 (Iowa 1985),] clearly stated
“[f]undamentally, in judicial review proceedings the district court
exercises only appellate jurisdiction and has ‘no original authority
to declare the rights of parties or the applicability of any statute or
rule.’ ” As such, the Court finds that the Petition improperly
combines a petition for judicial review and petition for declaratory
judgment.
(Fourth alteration in original.)
At that time, the court did not dismiss the remainder of the petition. The
parties submitted briefs on the merits of the case. On December 13, the court
heard oral argument on the merits.
On March 23, 2020, the district court issued a ruling that did not reach
the merits of the case. Instead, the court dismissed the balance of Klein’s judicial
4Hawk Eye v. Jackson, 521 N.W.2d 750 (Iowa 1994).
5State ex rel. Shanahan v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 356 N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1984).
13
review petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court
found, in essence, that Klein had not been a party to the contested case before
the Board, that he should have intervened in that case, and that his failure to
do so prevented him from seeking judicial review of that proceeding. The court
cited Public Employment Relations Board v. Stohr, 279 N.W.2d 286 (Iowa 1979),
as the controlling case. It interpreted Stohr as standing for the proposition that
“those seeking judicial review [must] be a ‘party’ to the contested case” in order
to exhaust all administrative remedies. In the court’s view, the mere act of filing
a complaint with the Board did not make Klein a party to the contested case that
resulted from his complaint.
On the standing issue, the district court held that Klein had standing, but
only to challenge the failure to release the dashcam footage, not the other items
he sought. The court observed that “the only records actually addressed [in the
Board’s final decision] were the bodycam footage, the dashcam footage, and the
911 calls.” Of those, the bodycam footage and a 911 call had already been made
public. Therefore, the court reasoned, the only issue that was both properly
preserved and not moot was whether the dashcam footage should be released.
Klein appealed the district court’s dismissal, arguing three things: (1) he
had exhausted administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Board;
(2) he had standing to challenge the denial of all records he originally requested;
and (3) declaratory relief is available to him on judicial review. We retained the
appeal.
14
III. Standard of Review.
Denial of a petition for judicial review based on a lack of standing and
failure to exhaust administrative remedies is reviewed for correction of errors at
law. Dickey v. Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Bd., 943 N.W.2d 34, 37
(Iowa 2020) (“We review a decision by the district court to dismiss a case based
on the lack of standing for errors at law.” (quoting Foodservice Distrib., Inc. v.
Iowa Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Iowa 2012))); see also Segura v.
State, 889 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Iowa 2017) (reviewing a dismissal for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies for correction of errors at law). Likewise, the
dismissal of a declaratory relief claim is reviewed for correction of errors at law.
See Marek v. Johnson, 958 N.W.2d 172, 176 (Iowa 2021) (“We review the district
court’s grant of a motion to dismiss a petition for correction of errors at law.”
(quoting Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 832 N.W.2d 636, 640
(Iowa 2013))).
IV. Analysis.
A. Chapter 23 Structure. The Board was established in 2012 when the
general assembly passed the Iowa Public Information Board Act. See 2012 Iowa
Acts ch. 1115, §§ 4–16 (codified at Iowa Code § 23 (2013)). The Board had its
first meeting on July 19, 2012. See About IPIB, Iowa Pub. Info. Bd.,
https://ipib.iowa.gov/about-ipib (last visited Oct. 26, 2021) (follow Annual
Report 2013 hyperlink). Since then, the Board has received hundreds of
complaints, many of them informal. See generally id. (annual totals of formal and
informal complaints available in hyperlinked annual reports). But only three
15
contested cases have reached the hearing stage. See Contested Cases, Iowa Pub.
Info. Bd., https://ipib.iowa.gov/contested-cases [https://perma.cc/7S2Z-
48YM] (containing the Board’s contested case decisions and settlements). Klein’s
complaint against the DCI and the BPD was the second of these. Id.
Given the short time period the Board has been in existence and the
relatively few complaints that have turned into contested cases, it should come
as no surprise that we have not grappled with Iowa Code chapter 23 before.
Accordingly, we will provide some background before discussing whether Klein
could properly bring this petition for judicial review.
1. Purpose. Chapter 23 begins with an explanation of the legislature’s
purpose in creating the statute:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an alternative means
by which to secure compliance with and enforcement of the
requirements of chapters 21 [open meetings] and 22 [open records]
through the provision by the Iowa public information board to all
interested parties of an efficient, informal, and cost-effective process
for resolving disputes.
Iowa Code § 23.1.
2. Election of remedies and preference given to Board complaints over
district court actions. Iowa Code section 23.5 offers a choice to persons seeking
to enforce the open records law. Section 23.5, titled “Election of remedies,”
provides, “An aggrieved person . . . may seek enforcement of the requirements of
chapter[] 22 by electing either to file [a district court action], or in the alternative,
to file a timely complaint with the board.” Id. § 23.5(1). If one person brings a
district court action and someone else files a complaint with the Board relating
to the same matter, “the court in which the action was filed shall stay the action
16
pending resolution of the complaint with the board,” and the person who filed
an action is authorized also to file a complaint with the Board. Id. § 23.5(2).
3. Complaint format. The statute does not identify any formal requirements
for complaints, leaving this for the Board to determine by rule. See id. § 23.7(1).
The Board’s administrative rules require that a complaint be in writing and meet
certain criteria to be accepted by the Board. Those rules state, “The complaint
shall allege a violation of Iowa Code chapter 21 or 22; provide specific facts in
support of the allegation, including the identification of persons and government
entity involved in the alleged violation; and provide the specific relief sought.”
Iowa Admin. Code r. 497—2.1(23).
4. Initial processing and efforts to achieve informal resolution. Once a
formal complaint is filed, the Board must determine whether it has jurisdiction
over the complaint and whether the complaint could have merit. If the Board
determines a complaint could have merit on its face and is within the Board’s
jurisdiction, the Board is required to “accept the complaint, and . . . notify the
parties of that fact in writing.” Iowa Code § 23.8(1). On the other hand, if the
Board rejects a complaint, the Board is only required to notify the complainant.
See id. § 23.8(2).
Rejection of a complaint at the outset leaves the complainant with no
further recourse. Thus, it would seemingly constitute final agency action and
open the door for the complainant to seek judicial review. See id. § 17A.19(1) (“A
person or party who has exhausted all adequate administrative remedies and
17
who is aggrieved or adversely affected by any final agency action is entitled to
judicial review.”).
Once a complaint is accepted, the Board is required to “notify the parties
of that fact in writing” and to “promptly work with the parties, through employees
of the board, to reach an informal, expeditious resolution of the complaint.” Id.
§§ 23.8(1), .9. At this point, the focus is still on the complaint and resolving the
dispute between the complainant and the respondent. See id. Notably, at this
stage, the complainant is deemed one of the “parties.” Id.
5. Investigation and probable cause determination. If informal assistance is
unsuccessful in resolving the matter, the Board initiates “a formal investigation
concerning the facts and circumstances set forth in the complaint.” Id.
§ 23.10(1). During the investigation, the Board is required to determine whether
probable cause exists and whether it has jurisdiction. Id. If either is absent, the
Board must issue a written order dismissing the complaint and notify “the
complainant” and “the party against whom the complaint was filed.” Id.
§ 23.10(2).
Much as before, a dismissal at this point would seemingly be a final agency
action on which the complainant could seek judicial review. But in Klein’s case,
the Board found probable cause to believe a chapter 22 violation had occurred.
Thus, it initiated a contested case proceeding pursuant to Iowa Code
section 23.10(3)(a) (“If the board finds the complaint is within the board’s
jurisdiction and there is a probable cause to believe there has been a violation of
18
chapter 21 or 22, the board . . . shall commence a contested case proceeding
under chapter 17A against the respondent.”).
6. Contested case proceeding. The first step taken in a contested case is
the appointment of a prosecutor: “The executive director of the board or an
attorney selected by the executive director shall prosecute the respondent in the
contested case proceeding.” Id. If the Board has an attorney other than its
executive director prosecute the case, as occurred here, that attorney has
sometimes been referred to as a “special prosecutor.”
Next, the Board’s administrative rules allow for pleadings in contested
cases, including a petition. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 497—4.10(2). A petition
must include “[t]he persons or entities on whose behalf the petition is filed.” Id.
r. 497—4.10(2)(b)(1). The special prosecutor filed a petition in this case.
Notably, Iowa Code chapter 23 says nothing of a petition; it speaks only of
the complaint filed by the complainant. Thus, section 23.10(3)(a) provides that
“[a]t the termination of the contested case proceeding the board shall . . . render
a final decision as to the merits of the complaint.”
The Board’s rules allow nonparties to move to intervene and become
parties to a contested case proceeding. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 497—4.18. In
order to intervene and become a party, the movant must show three things:
“(a) intervention would not unduly prolong the proceedings or otherwise
prejudice the rights of existing parties; (b) the movant is likely to be aggrieved or
adversely affected by a final order in the proceeding; and (c) the interests of the
19
movant are not adequately represented by existing parties.” Id. r. 497—4.18(3).
Klein did not seek to intervene here.
7. Rendering a decision. After a case goes to hearing before a hearing
officer, the hearing officer issues a proposed decision. See id. r. 497—4.25(2).
That proposed decision is adopted by the Board unless a party takes an intra-
agency appeal to the Board or the Board initiates review of the decision on its
own motion. Id. r. 497—4.25(2), —4.26(2)–(3). If an appeal is made, the Board
resolves the appeal and issues its final decision.
When the Board finds a violation of Iowa Code chapter 22, it can take
remedial action. See Iowa Code § 23.10(3)(a)–(b). It can require the respondent
to pay statutory damages as allowed by section 22.10 to the extent that damages
would be payable if the complainant had gone to court instead. See id.
§ 23.10(3)(b)(1). Statutory damages are paid to the state or local government, not
the complainant. See id. § 22.10(3)(b).
Once a final decision is made by the Board, judicial review may be sought.
Id. § 23.10(3)(d) (“A final board order . . . is subject to judicial review pursuant
to section 17A.19.”). But only “[a] person or party who has exhausted all
adequate administrative remedies . . . is entitled to judicial review.”6 Id.
§ 17A.19(1). Whether Klein fits this description is the nub of this case and the
issue to which we turn first.
6The statute also requires the person or party to be “aggrieved or adversely affected by
any final agency action.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(1). It is not disputed that Klein was adversely
affected here.
20
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. “All administrative
remedies must be exhausted before an aggrieved party is entitled to judicial
review of an administrative decision.” Riley v. Boxa, 542 N.W.2d 519, 521
(Iowa 1996). The Board and respondents claim—and the district court found—
that Iowa Code chapter 23 required Klein to intervene in the contested case in
order to exhaust his administrative remedies. While intervention is not explicitly
required by chapter 23, they argue that it is implicitly required because it is the
only way for a complainant to become a party to the contested case.
Iowa Code section 17A.19(1) specifies that a “person or party” can obtain
judicial review. Klein urges that a person is able to exhaust administrative
remedies without having been a party to a contested case. As the district court
acknowledged, normally the word “or” is disjunctive. See Kearney v. Ahmann,
264 N.W.2d 768, 769 (Iowa 1978) (“When the word ‘or’ is used it is presumed to
be disjunctive unless a contrary legislative intent appears.”). And generally, we
presume the legislature doesn’t waste words. See Iowa Code § 4.4(2) (setting forth
a presumption that “[t]he entire statute is intended to be effective”). Accordingly,
based on the text of section 17A.19(1) alone, there should be times when a
“person” can exhaust administrative remedies and seek judicial review without
having been a “party.”
On the other hand, contested cases are proceedings in which “the legal
rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by Constitution or statute to
be determined by an agency.” Id. § 17A.2(5) (emphasis added). It is difficult to
conceive how a nonparty “person” could exhaust administrative remedies
21
through a contested case without being a “party” to it in some sense. Other types
of agency proceedings are different because they may not involve parties. For
example, we have made clear that nonparties can seek judicial review of an
agency’s adoption of a rule. See, e.g., Lundy v. Iowa Dep’t of Hum. Servs.,
376 N.W.2d 893, 895–96 (Iowa 1985).
The Board and respondents argue that Stohr limits the availability of
judicial review in contested cases to parties. See 279 N.W.2d at 291. In Stohr, a
county petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) for a
declaratory ruling that a union should not have been certified as the bargaining
representative for a group of county employees. Id. at 288–89. When PERB
dismissed the petition, four landowners and taxpayers, in addition to the county,
sought judicial review. Id. We determined that the landowners and taxpayers
had not exhausted administrative remedies and could not pursue judicial review.
Id. at 288, 291.
We observed in Stohr that “[o]ther courts have limited the right of judicial
review to parties participating in the agency proceedings.” Id. at 291. And we
captioned that section of the opinion: “Can persons not parties in the agency
proceeding petition for judicial review?” Id. Yet Stohr does not cover the present
set of facts. In Stohr, the landowners and taxpayers had no connection to the
administrative proceeding. Id. at 288. They tried to participate only at the judicial
review stage. Id. Klein, on the other hand, was responsible for initiating the
agency proceedings. And his complaint was the subject of the Board’s final
decision.
22
The Board and respondents also point to Fisher v. Iowa Board of Optometry
Examiners, 476 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa 1991), as support for their position that
intervention was required for Klein to seek judicial review. In Fisher, the Iowa
Optometry Board had initiated a disciplinary proceeding against a licensed
optometrist. Id. at 49. The only party named in the caption of the administrative
action was the optometrist. Id. at 50. The board served as fact finder, while an
assistant attorney general prosecuted the case. Id. Initially, the charges against
the optometrist were dismissed. Id. at 49. Thereafter, the assistant attorney
general “filed an application for a rehearing on behalf of the State.” Id. In
response, the board amended its decision and imposed a penalty on the
optometrist. Id. The optometrist then sought judicial review and the attorney
general unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the district court on behalf of the
State. Id.The question before us in Fisher was whether the State had been a “party”
to the administrative proceeding and thus was entitled to intervene in the judicial
review action. Id. We said that the mere fact an assistant attorney general had
prosecuted the case before the agency did not make the State a party. Id. at 50.
It was “the common posture” for that to occur. Id. We explained that some
“affirmative action” in the administrative proceeding was required for the State
to become a party. Id. at 51. However, that had occurred when the State stepped
in and sought rehearing following the Optometry Board’s initial dismissal of the
charges. Id.
23The Board and respondents claim that Klein failed to take such affirmative
action here. We disagree. In Fisher, the State was not an initial party to the
administrative proceeding, so its affirmative action came late. Id. at 50. Here, by
contrast, Klein started the process. He filed a complaint with the Board that
detailed the alleged violation of chapter 22, provided specific facts in support of
the allegation, and requested specific relief. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 497—
2.1(23). All this was akin to filing an initial pleading in a court case.
Turning from the caselaw, we think there are several reasons, both textual
and nontextual, to conclude that Klein—as the complainant—exhausted
administrative remedies here.
First, the statute at times refers to the complainant as a “party.” See Iowa
Code §§ 23.8(1), .9, .10(1).
Second, the Board and the special prosecutor treated Klein as a party in
some respects. The special prosecutor listed Klein in his petition under the
heading “Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue.” And Klein received service on filings
that occurred throughout the contested case, including orders entered by the
ALJ and the Board.
Third, the very point of a contested case before the Board is to decide the
merits of the complaint filed by the complainant: “At the termination of the
contested case proceeding the board shall . . . render a final decision as to the
merits of the complaint.” Id. § 23.10(3)(a). Even if we were to accept the view that
the contested case is a distinct and separate proceeding to which complainants
must intervene to become a party, at the end of the day, the Board is still
24
rendering a final decision on the complaint. Id. It does not seem remarkable that
the complainant should be allowed to seek judicial review without having
intervened when their complaint is the focus of the proceeding. Since the Board
is adjudicating their complaint, it would arguably elevate form over substance to
require the complainant to intervene.
Fourth, there are practical reasons not to make intervention the sine qua
non of judicial review. See id. § 4.4(3) (setting forth the presumption that
“[a] just and reasonable result is intended”). The complainant would have to
intervene routinely to preserve any possibility of judicial review in a contested
case in which the Board declined to grant all the relief sought by the
complainant. The Board cannot seek judicial review of its own order. Thus,
regular interventions by complainants—even if the complainants were totally
satisfied with the Board’s prosecution of the case—would be necessary simply to
preserve the prospect of judicial review.
Fifth, as chapter 23 makes clear, the Board is designed to provide a
“process for resolving disputes” that should be “efficient, informal, and cost-
effective.” Id. § 23.1. An intervention requirement would tend to undermine these
goals. It could reduce efficiency to inject more motions, briefs, and arguments
into the administrative proceeding if they normally duplicate the advocacy of the
prosecutor. And complainants would typically need to hire counsel at this
administrative stage, substantially increasing costs.
Sixth, the existence of the election-of-remedies provision in Iowa Code
section 23.5 also tends to support Klein’s position. Under section 23.5, the
25
complainant can bring an action under section 22.10 “or in the alternative . . .
file a timely complaint with the board.” Id. § 23.5(1). One of two paths must be
chosen. If, however, the complainant sacrifices their right to bring an
independent court action under section 22.10 by filing an administrative
complaint, it seems only fair that they should have the ability to obtain judicial
review of the action taken on their administrative complaint. It would be harsh
to deny the complainant access to the courthouse.
Seeking to counter these points, the Board compares its handling of open
records complaints to the manner in which the Iowa Board of Medicine (IBM)
handles complaints regarding licensed physicians. But if there is an analogous
process in another administrative agency, it is not the IBM’s. The IBM was not
designed to provide an alternate means for patients to resolve bilateral disputes
with doctors. See id. chs. 147, 148, 272C. If a patient sustains an injury due to
malpractice, their remedy lies in a lawsuit. Filing a complaint with the IBM may
spark a disciplinary action, but these disciplinary measures do not provide relief
to the complainant. See id. § 148.7(8). Nor is the complainant referred to as a
“party.” See id. §§ 148.7, 272C.4. These attributes of the IBM’s process depart
from the dispute resolution process described in chapter 23.
While the analogy is not perfect, we think the Board’s process more closely
resembles that of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). ICRC complaints and
hearings serve the purpose of vindicating the complainant’s rights. The ICRC
makes a probable cause determination on the complainant’s allegations of a
discriminatory or unfair practice. Id. § 216.15(3)(a). If probable cause exists the
26
ICRC attempts to “eliminate the discriminatory or unfair practice by conference,
conciliation, and persuasion.” Id. § 216.15(3)(c). If that fails, the ICRC takes the
case to hearing. Id. § 216.15(6). At the hearing, the case in support of the
complaint is made by one of the ICRC’s attorneys or agents. Id. § 216.15(7) (“The
case in support of such complaint shall be presented at the hearing by one of
the commission’s attorneys or agents.”). This process parallels the process
described in chapter 23.
The two chapters also contain similar language. See Iowa Code §§ 216.15
(using dispute resolution language, including terms such as “complainant,”
“respondent,” and “party”), .17 (referring to “parties”). Chapter 216, like
chapter 23, comes with a strong implication that the complainant and
respondent are considered to be parties to a dispute. See id. §§ 216.17(1)(b)
(stating that the final decision is mailed to the parties), .15(3)(c) (requiring a final
decision to be mailed to the complainant and respondent). In yet another
similarity, chapter 216 doesn’t explicitly say that civil rights complainants can
seek judicial review of the ICRC’s final decision. See id. § 216.17. But there is no
question that they can. See, e.g., Renda v. Iowa C.R. Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8, 9
(Iowa 2010); King v. Iowa C.R. Comm’n, 334 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Iowa 1983).
We believe the Board’s mechanism for enforcing a complainant’s right to
public records resembles the ICRC’s mechanism for enforcing a complainant’s
right to be free from discrimination. It is reasonable that a Board complainant
should have an analogous right to seek judicial review of the Board’s final
decision.
27
A look at the practices in other jurisdictions gives us assurance that our
conclusion makes sense as a policy matter. Only a small minority of states have
administrative bodies dedicated to open-records enforcement. But the states that
do have them structure them as dispute resolution systems, not regulatory or
law enforcement bodies. And all of them allow a complainant to seek judicial
review when access to records is denied.7
Granted, none of those states use an agency-appointed prosecutor during
the contested case stage as Iowa does. But as far as we can tell, Iowa’s system
seeks to accomplish the same goals as those in other states. Nothing in the text
of chapter 23 or chapter 17A requires us to curb the availability of judicial review
for open-records complainants in Iowa. We decline to do so.
7Connecticut has a Freedom of Information Commission that renders open records
decisions. “Any party aggrieved” by the commission’s decision can appeal. Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 1-206(d) (2021). Prior to amendment, the law in Connecticut was that only the complainant
and the public body could appeal; now the commission can as well. See Loc. 1303 & Loc. 1378
v. FOIC, 463 A.2d 613, 616 (Conn. 1983) (holding the commission could not appeal a lower
court’s judicial review decision that modified the commission’s because “the freedom of
information commission is arguably not a ‘party’ and certainly not ‘aggrieved’ ”).
In Maryland, “a complainant or custodian may appeal to the circuit court a decision
issued by the State Public Information Act Compliance Board.” Md. Code Ann., General
Provisions § 4-362(a)(2) (West 2021).
New Jersey only allows the requestor to seek judicial review of a Government Records
Council decision. In re N.J. Firemen’s Ass’n Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under the
Open Public Records Act, 166 A.3d 1125, 1136 (N.J. 2017) (stating that “only the requestor may
seek judicial review of the agency’s decision” under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act,
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 47:1A–1 to –13 (West 2017)).
Pennsylvania has an Office of Open Records. Both the “requester” and the agency may
seek judicial review of that body’s decisions. 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.1301(a) (2021).
In South Dakota, open records disputes are heard by the Office of Hearing Examiners.
The state’s statute says, “The aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Office of Hearing
Examiners to the circuit court.” S.D. Codified Laws § 1-27-41 (2021). Elsewhere in the statute,
it is clear that the “requestor” and the public entity denying the records request are the parties
to the dispute. See id. § 1-27-39.
28
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Board complainants exhaust
administrative remedies by filing their complaint with the Board and receiving
an adverse final decision on that complaint. Klein is a person or party who has
exhausted his administrative remedies.8 Klein can petition for review of the
Board’s contested case decision despite not having intervened in the proceedings
below.
We close this discussion with three notes of caution. First, the present
decision applies only to the Board and chapter 23. We are not deciding, as to
other contested-case agency proceedings, whether a complainant must
participate in the contested case in order to exhaust administrative remedies and
have the right of judicial review.
Second, doctrines of claim and issue preclusion may come into play. A
complainant who has the ability to obtain judicial review of a Board decision and
fails to do so may become bound by that decision for claim and issue preclusion
purposes.
Third, as we discuss in the next section of this opinion, a complainant who
fails to participate in the contested case before the Board may seek review of the
Board’s decision in that case, but the complainant may not raise issues that
were not considered by the Board. Any other rule would favor nonparticipants in
the administrative proceeding over participants.
8We need not decide whether Klein is technically a “person” or “party” under Iowa Code
section 17A.19(1). Our conclusion is simply that he exhausted administrative remedies within
the meaning of the statute.
29
C. Standing. Having concluded that Klein has exhausted administrative
remedies and is entitled to seek judicial review of the Board’s final decision under
Iowa Code section 17A.19, we need to determine what matters he can raise. The
district court held that Klein did not have standing to seek judicial review of the
withholding of any of the items he sought other than the dashcam footage. Klein
argues that he is entitled to judicial review with respect to all the records he
requested in his original complaint. While this issue has been framed primarily
as a question of standing by the parties and the district court, it can also be
viewed through the lens of other doctrines such as mootness, issue preservation,
and exhaustion of administrative remedies.9
1. No standing to pursue records that are already publicly available. “[T]o
have standing to challenge an administrative action in court under the [Iowa
Administrative Procedure Act], ‘the complaining party must (1) have a specific,
personal, and legal interest in the litigation; and (2) the specific interest must be
adversely affected by the agency action in question.’ ” Dickey, 943 N.W.2d at
37–38 (quoting Medco Behav. Care Corp. of Iowa v. Iowa Dep’t of Hum. Servs.,
9Standing and mootness are related, but they are not synonymous. See Puntenney v. Iowa
Utils. Bd., 928 N.W.2d 829, 837–38 (Iowa 2019) (analyzing the issues of standing and mootness
separately). “One commentator has defined mootness as ‘the doctrine of standing set in a time
frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation
(standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).’ ” Baker v. City of Iowa City, 750
N.W.2d 93, 97 (Iowa 2008) (quoting U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980)
(quoting Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363,
1384 (1973))).
Some of the requested records were unsealed in the federal litigation and became publicly
available on or after August 14, 2018. See Steele, 334 F. Supp. 3d at 976. This judicial review
proceeding was not commenced until March 22, 2019. Thus, the question is probably technically
one of standing rather than mootness because we are dealing with records that were already
public when the judicial review proceeding was filed.
30
553 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Iowa 1996)). In Dickey v. Iowa Ethics & Campaign
Disclosure Board, we held that the petitioner lacked standing to obtain judicial
review of an administrative decision in a campaign finance reporting matter
where the petitioner already had the relevant information. Id. at 38–39.
Based upon this principle of justiciability, the district court refused to
consider whether the respondents were required to release records that had been
unsealed by the federal court and were available to the public—specifically, the
bodycam footage and the 911 call or calls. It reasoned, “The Court cannot provide
any remedy to Klein with regard to these records now, as they have already been
released to Klein and the general public.”
The district court was correct to find that Klein lacked standing to seek
judicial review with respect to records that were already publicly available. Klein
makes no meaningful attempt to argue otherwise.
2. No standing to pursue records as to which there was no intra-agency
appeal and the correctness of the ALJ’s ruling on those records was conceded. The
other facet of this issue requires us to determine which matters were actually
decided by the Board and therefore can be considered on judicial review. “In
reviewing agency action, the district court and the appellate court may
only review issues considered and decided by the agency.” Grudle v. Iowa Dep’t
of Rev. & Fin., 450 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Iowa 1990); see also Irving v. Emp.
Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179, 186 (Iowa 2016) (“We have repeatedly said in the
context of unemployment appeals that we consider only issues raised in the
record before the EAB.”); KFC Corp. v. Iowa Dep’t of Rev., 792 N.W.2d 308, 329
31
(Iowa 2010) (“[W]e decline to entertain issues not ruled upon by an agency when
the aggrieved party failed to follow available procedures to alert the agency of the
issue.”); St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 650 (Iowa 2000) (“Our review
of contested case decisions is limited to those questions considered by the
agency.”); Meads v. Iowa Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 366 N.W.2d 555, 559 (Iowa 1985)
(“The district court may only review issues considered and decided by the
agency.”).
The district court took the view that the Board only considered the
confidentiality of three categories of records: the bodycam footage, the dashcam
footage, and the 911 calls. In the words of the district court, “Although the
[Board] included the phrase ‘such as,’ it appears to the Court the only records
actually addressed were the bodycam footage, the dashcam footage, and the 911
calls.” Consequently, the court limited its review to those three items. The Board
and respondents agree with the district court and argue that, if Klein can obtain
judicial review at all, it is limited to those three items.
Klein sees the matter differently. He contends that everything he requested
in his complaint to the Board is fair game for judicial review. He notes that the
Board’s finding of probable cause used the phrase “including, but not limited to”
with respect to the three specific records in controversy. In addition, the special
prosecutor’s petition alleged, “Among the public records that were requested but
which Respondents have wrongfully refused to produce . . . .” (emphasis added).
Klein argues that this catchall language demonstrates that the special
prosecutor was pursuing more than just the video footage and the emergency
32
dispatch calls. As Klein notes, while the Board’s ultimate conclusion refers only
to the three sets of records, elsewhere the Board stated, “The crux of this case is
whether DCI and [BPD] violated chapter 22 by refusing to release the recording
and transcript of 911 calls, bodycam videos taken by officers, videos taken by
dash cameras, and records showing the ‘date, time, specific location and
immediate circumstances surrounding the incident.’ ”
On our review of the administrative record, we agree with the district
court’s analysis of what was actually considered and decided by the Board. In
her proposed decision, the ALJ made two distinct determinations. First, she
found that the Des Moines County Attorney’s letter fulfilled the BPD’s and the
DCI’s obligation to provide “the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts
and circumstances surrounding [the] incident.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5). Second, she
found that the 911 calls, the bodycam footage, and the dashcam footage should
be produced. She reasoned that these items were not shielded from public
scrutiny by having been made part of an investigative report. The ALJ thus
concluded, simply, “The Respondents should produce the 911 tape, the dashcam
videos, and the bodycam videos.”
The BPD and the DCI appealed. The special prosecutor, however, did not
appeal. Instead, in his responsive briefing, he stated that the ALJ’s ruling was
“correct and should be adopted by the Board.” His briefing also indicated that
the dispute was limited to the videos and the 911 calls. At oral argument before
the Board, the special prosecutor conceded that he was only seeking to uphold
the ALJ’s proposed decision, not to expand it.
33
Klein claims that the rulings of the Board and the ALJ were broad enough
to include other documents related to the January 6, 2015 incident. But before
the Board, the special prosecutor limited his argument to three discrete items.
We think only the items contested by the special prosecutor before the Board are
before this court.
As we explained previously, Klein did not need to intervene to seek judicial
review. But having not intervened, he is limited to the issues that were
considered and decided below. If Klein had intervened, he could have pursued
an intra-agency appeal challenging the ALJ’s determination that the county
attorney letter satisfied the respondents’ obligation to provide “the date, time,
specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding [the]
incident” under Iowa Code section 22.7(5). But no such appeal was brought;
instead, the special prosecutor conceded the correctness of the ALJ’s ruling.
There was, therefore, only one fighting issue before the Board: whether the 911
calls, the bodycam video, and the dashcam video should be produced. Hence,
they are the only records whose nonproduction is before the district court on
judicial review—not the universe of records sought by Klein’s original complaint
or even by the special prosecutor’s petition.
It is true that the Board’s final decision incorporated the ALJ’s ruling as
to the first determination identified above. Thus, using language that tracked
what the ALJ had said, the Board found the county attorney’s letter satisfied the
requirements of Iowa Code section 22.7(5) to disclose “the date, time, specific
location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding [the] incident.”
34
But the first determination was no longer a live issue when the contested case
got to the Board. The special prosecutor had accepted this part of the ALJ’s ruling
and did not appeal. No one alerted the Board that they disagreed with this
portion of the ALJ’s ruling, so the Board simply incorporated this portion of the
ALJ’s ruling. And because he did not intervene, Klein cannot stand in a better
position than the parties who actually litigated before the agency. See
Cont’l Tel. Co. v. Colton, 348 N.W.2d 623, 626 (Iowa 1984) (“[O]rdinarily
administrative agencies should be permitted to correct their own errors before
resort is had to the courts.”); see also N. River Ins. v. Iowa Div. of Ins., 501 N.W.2d
542, 546 (Iowa 1993) (“An insurance company is not entitled to judicial review
of a proposed decision which has not been appealed to the insurance
commissioner.”).
3. Conclusion. The district court correctly determined that the Board
considered only the 911 calls, the bodycam footage, and the dashcam footage.
We also agree that Klein lacked standing to pursue records now in the public
domain. Although the district court indicated that all the 911 calls and the
bodycam footage were now publicly available, a question was raised at oral
argument whether all 911 calls relating to the shooting have been produced. On
remand, the district court should address the production of any dashcam video
and 911 calls related to the shooting.
D. Declaratory Relief. Finally, we consider Klein’s separate request for
declaratory relief. In Klein’s petition for judicial review, he sought the following
relief in addition to reversal of the Board’s administrative decision:
35
[1] A declaratory ruling that 911 calls, bodycam video, and
dashcam video are not “peace officers’ investigative reports,” but
rather comprise the “immediate facts and circumstances
surrounding a crime or incident” and thus “shall not be kept
confidential . . . except in those circumstances where disclosure
would plainly and seriously jeopardize an investigation or pose a
clear and present danger to the safety of any individual” per Iowa
Code section 22.7(5) or would otherwise be confidential under
section 22.7;
....
[2] A declaratory ruling that even when deemed potentially
confidential, peace officers’ investigative reports under Iowa Code
section 22.7(5) are subject to the Hawk Eye and Shanahan 3-part
balancing test to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the
government interest in nondisclosure.
(Footnote omitted.)
The district court dismissed those two requests because it viewed them as
improper attempts to invoke its original jurisdiction. The court cited Black v.
University of Iowa for the proposition that a judicial review proceeding cannot be
joined with an original action. See 362 N.W.2d at 462 (“Fundamentally, in
judicial review proceedings the district court exercises only appellate jurisdiction
and has ‘no original authority to declare the rights of parties or the applicability
of any statute or rule.’ ” (quoting Stohr, 279 N.W.2d at 290)). We think the district
court’s analysis was correct.
Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Department of Transportation,
832 N.W.2d 636, is on point. There, we refused to allow a declaratory judgment
action to be brought against a state agency. Id. at 648. We explained that “the
legislature created the administrative procedure for agency-issued declaratory
orders, as codified in section 17A.9, to replace the court-provided remedy of
36
declaratory judgments under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1102 for matters
within an agency’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 646. We held that the Sierra Club had to
exhaust administrative remedies by seeking a declaratory order from the Iowa
Department of Transportation before it could bring a declaratory judgment
action in district court. Id. at 648.
Here, the Board likewise has statutory authority to issue declaratory
orders. See Iowa Code § 23.6(3). But Klein did not seek such an order. We
conclude, therefore, that his request for a declaratory judgment was properly
dismissed under the authority of Sierra Club. However, this does not preclude
the district court from making a legal determination on any issue that is properly
before it, even if the issue was also part of Klein’s requested declaratory relief. In
short, the district court always has the authority to decide what the law requires
in a particular case.
V. Conclusion.
For the reasons stated, we conclude that Klein has standing to seek
judicial review of the Board’s February 21, 2019 final decision. Review is limited
to the matters that were raised before the Board and decided by it. Those matters
are the 911 calls, the bodycam footage, and the dashcam footage. However, Klein
lacks standing to pursue any of those items that have already been made public.
Klein is also not eligible for declaratory relief. We affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
37
All justices concur except McDermott, J., who takes no part.