Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigation, Judicial Branch, State Court Administrator and Polk County Clerk of Court v. Iowa District Court for Polk County

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 10–0985
Filed July 15, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,
JUDICIAL BRANCH, STATE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR and POLK COUNTY
CLERK OF COURT,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR
POLK COUNTY,
Defendant.
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Odell G.
McGhee, District Associate Judge.
Plaintiffs seek certiorari review of a district court order requiring
them to remove information relating to a dismissed criminal case from
their respective computer systems. WRIT SUSTAINED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Pamela D. Griebel and
Jeffrey C. Peterzalek, Assistant Attorneys General, for plaintiffs.
Tammy Westhoff Gentry of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble
Parrish Gentry & Fisher, LLP, Des Moines, for defendant.
Michael A. Giudicessi of Faegre & Benson LLP, Des Moines, for
Amicus Curiae The Iowa Freedom of Information Council.
2
MANSFIELD, Justice.
The Iowa Judicial Branch, the Iowa State Court Administrator, and
the Polk County Clerk of Court (collectively referred to as “the Judicial
Branch”) and the Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal
Investigation (referred to as “DPS”) challenge through original certiorari
proceedings the legality of a district court order requiring the removal of
information relating to a dismissed criminal case from their respective
computer systems. With respect to the Judicial Branch, we adopt the
reasoning set forth in our companion case decided today, see Judicial
Branch v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Linn County, 800 N.W.2d 569 (Iowa 2011),
and find the judiciary’s computerized docket is not covered by Iowa Code
section 692.17(1) (Supp. 2009). 1 Regarding DPS, we hold that Iowa Code
section 692.5 (2009) provides the exclusive remedy for persons seeking
the removal of criminal history data from the records of that agency. For
these reasons, we sustain the requested writ of certiorari in full.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In May 2009, C.R. 2 was charged with assault causing bodily injury
in Polk County District Court. She pled not guilty. On August 28, the
State filed a notice of intent not to prosecute the charge, citing
“insufficient evidence.” The district court dismissed the charge on the
same date.
On February 10, 2010, C.R. filed an application to expunge the
dismissed criminal charge pursuant to Iowa Code section 692.17. 3 The
1Allstatutory citations are to the 2009 supplement unless specifically noted
otherwise herein.
2We will refer to C.R. by her initials only.
3Section 692.17(1) provides that “[c]riminal history data in a computer data
storage system shall not include arrest or disposition data or custody or adjudication
data after the person has been acquitted or the charges dismissed . . . .”
3
request was submitted under the dismissed criminal case docket number
and sought the removal of any and all criminal history data from the
computer data storage systems for “the Department of Public Safety, the
Division of Criminal Investigation, the Bureau of Identification, [and] the
Iowa Courts Information System (ICIS) or its parent bureau.” On
February 17, the district court entered an order granting the request.
However, after receiving a communication from the attorney
general’s office, the district court on February 24 suspended its previous
order, noting that Iowa Code section 692.17 “has not been extensively
litigated, and there are differing perspectives on interpretation and
applicability.” The court set C.R.’s request for a hearing. Before the
scheduled hearing, the attorney general filed a formal resistance to the
expungement request. The attorney general argued, inter alia: (1) the
only procedural mechanism for seeking removal of information from
DPS’s computer system is an administrative request under Iowa Code
section 692.5 followed by judicial review under chapter 17A; (2) the
district court lacked inherent authority to enter an expungement order in
a previously dismissed criminal case; and (3) the Judicial Branch’s
dockets are not subject to purging under Iowa Code section 692.17.
In response, C.R. expanded her request for expungement to
include the Polk County Sheriff, the Polk County Attorney, and the Des
Moines Police Department. She further asserted an equal protection
argument under the Iowa Constitution, stating, “It is illogical and
unequal that cases where judgments are deferred would be expunged,
but those cases where a dismissal results would remain.”
On June 10, the district court issued a ruling reaffirming its prior
order. The court reasoned that “the act of expunging records has
historically and regularly been ordered by both criminal courts and
4
sentencing courts.” The court also found that the administrative process
afforded by Iowa Code section 692.5 and judicial review therefrom were
not the exclusive remedy for a person seeking deletion of records from
the DPS computer system. Lastly, the court concluded that the
electronic docket entries on ICIS and the website Iowa Courts Online
relating to C.R.’s dismissed case were covered by section 692.17(1). 4 The
court added that even if the statute did not apply to the Judicial Branch,
the Equal Protection Clause in Article I section 6 of the Iowa Constitution
would be violated if criminal cases resulting in deferred judgments could
be expunged from the public docket, but not criminal cases resulting in
dismissals or acquittals. 5
On June 14, the attorney general filed a petition for writ of
certiorari. We granted the petition on July 7.
II. Issues Presented.
Both the Judicial Branch and DPS ask us to sustain the writ of
certiorari and vacate the district court’s order. The Judicial Branch
raises the same arguments that were presented in Judicial Branch v.
Iowa District Court for Linn County. For the reasons set forth in that
opinion, we sustain the requested writ in favor of the Judicial Branch.
DPS, by contrast, raises other grounds for why it should not have
been ordered to delete records relating to C.R.’s proceeding. First, DPS
contends that section 692.5 operates as an exclusive administrative
remedy whenever expungement of its records is sought pursuant to
4In reaching this conclusion, the district court found that the Judicial Branch
was a “criminal justice agency” within the meaning of chapter 692. See Iowa Code
§ 692.1(7) (2009) (defining “criminal or juvenile justice agency”). This aspect of the
district court’s ruling was not challenged by the attorney general in its briefing either
here or below. Therefore, we do not pass judgment on it.
5Thecourt did not expressly rule on C.R.’s request that the expungement order
be broadened to cover additional entities beyond DPS and the Judicial Branch.
5
chapter 692. Second, DPS maintains that a district court does not have
inherent, nonstatutory authority to revive a dismissed criminal case for
the purpose of ordering a nonparty, such as DPS, to delete records.
III. Standard of Review.
When we consider a writ of certiorari alleging the district court has
exceeded its proper jurisdiction, we review for the correction of errors at
law. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 750 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 2008).
IV. Exclusivity of Section 692.5’s Remedy as to DPS.
We believe this case is controlled by the plain language of section
692.5 and by our prior decisions. If a person believes DPS is
maintaining criminal history data in violation of chapter 692, he or she is
provided the following avenue for relief:
Any person who files with the division [i.e., the
Division of Criminal Investigation] a written statement to the
effect that a statement contained in the criminal history data
that refers to the person is nonfactual, or information not
authorized by law to be kept, and requests a correction or
elimination of that information that refers to that person
shall be notified within twenty days by the division, in
writing, of the division’s decision or order regarding the
correction or elimination. Judicial review of the actions of
the division may be sought in accordance with the terms of
the Iowa administrative procedure Act, chapter 17A. . . .
. . . The provisions of this section shall be the sole right
of action against the department [i.e., DPS], its subdivisions, or
employees regarding improper storage or release of criminal
history data.
Id. § 692.5 (2009) (emphasis added). Notably, the General Assembly said
that an administrative filing, followed by judicial review if necessary
under chapter 17A, constituted the “sole right of action” against DPS.
The exclusivity of this remedy has previously been noted by our court on
two occasions.
6
In State, Department of Public Safety v. Woodhall, 376 N.W.2d 897
(Iowa 1985), we first recognized the exclusivity of the section 692.5
remedy. There Woodhall had pled guilty to third-degree theft. 376
N.W.2d at 897. After successfully completing his probation, he sought
an order in his criminal case to have his fingerprints on file with the
department and other law enforcement agencies destroyed. Id. at 898.
We ultimately held the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter such an
order within the criminal case. We explained:
The essence of the order here challenged was that the
department had acted improperly in retaining defendant’s
fingerprint records in its files. Exclusive jurisdiction over
that subject matter—agency action involving recordkeeping
responsibilities—is vested in judicial review proceedings
pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 17A, the Iowa Administrative
Procedure Act. The criminal court had no jurisdiction to
address and decide the propriety of that agency action.
Id. This did not mean that Woodhall was without a remedy. Citing
section 692.5, we said that Woodhall
may examine criminal history data, request correction of
data maintained by the department, and obtain judicial
review pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 17A. The district
court’s jurisdiction in such a proceeding is exclusive; the
criminal court does not have concurrent jurisdiction over
those agency recordkeeping functions.
Id. at 899.
Three years later, in Banos v. Shepard, 419 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa
1988), we again rejected an attempt by an individual to sidestep the
section 692.5 process. There Banos wrote DPS and requested it remove
two pieces of information from his criminal history data. 419 N.W.2d at
365. DPS deleted one of the items, but refused to remove the other. Id.
Banos then filed an original petition in equity in the district court
seeking removal of the latter item. Id. The district court granted the
requested relief, but we reversed on appeal. We held that section 692.5
7
does not give an equity court any independent power to
fashion a remedy for inaccurately kept criminal history data
records. The remedy mentioned in section 692.5 is that of
judicial review and is found in section 17A.19. That remedy
is exclusive.
Id. at 366.
In short, section 692.5 provides the exclusive administrative
remedy for a person such as C.R. seeking removal of criminal history
data from DPS files. It is not appropriate to bring a direct civil action (as
in Banos) or to use a prior criminal case (as in Woodhall and here) for
that purpose. Because we agree with DPS’s first argument for vacating
the district court’s order, we need not address its alternative argument
that a district court lacks inherent, nonstatutory authority to order a
nonparty, such as DPS, to delete records.
V. Conclusion.
We find the district court acted without jurisdiction and sustain
the writ of certiorari.
WRIT SUSTAINED.