Benjamin Ward v. Iowa Public Information Board

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-0927
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0927 Filed July 23, 2025

BENJAMIN WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

IOWA PUBLIC INFORMATION BOARD, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Christopher Kemp,

Judge.

A complainant appeals from judicial review of a decision made by the Iowa

Public Information Board. AFFIRMED.

Benjamin Ward, Altoona, self-represented appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and John R. Lundquist, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

Benjamin Ward appeals from judicial review of agency action by the Iowa

Public Information Board (IPIB). IPIB dismissed as legally insufficient two

complaints made by Ward, arising out of Ward’s records disputes with the Altoona

Police Department (Altoona PD). On our review, we affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings. Ward made two complaints to IPIB.

His first complaint—numbered 23FC:0036 by IPIB’s internal system—alleged that

Altoona PD failed to produce complete body-cam footage of an interaction

between officers and one of Ward’s neighbors. Ward’s specific claim was that

Altoona PD withheld or redacted the first four minutes of a recording, apparently

based on Ward comparing the body-cam footage timestamp against his own home

security footage. The police chief responded to the complaint, indicating that

nothing was redacted from the footage and speculating that the timestamps relied

on by Ward were not synchronized with each other.

Ward’s second complaint—originally internally numbered 23FC:0043—

alleged that Altoona PD withheld records related to an open criminal investigation

in which Ward was involved. Ward felt that the information he received was

incomplete or inaccurate. Altoona PD responded that it had provided the

immediate facts and circumstances related to this report and it withheld additional

information on the basis that it was an ongoing investigation.

IPIB’s executive director issued a preliminary order consolidating and

dismissing Ward’s complaints as legally insufficient. Ward filed a written objection,

and the executive director revised the preliminary order and presented it to IPIB.

The revised preliminary order proposed a finding as to Ward’s first complaint that 3

there was “no credible evidence to indicate that [Altoona PD] did not release the

entire body camera recording” and a finding as to Ward’s second complaint that

Altoona PD had lawfully withheld records given the competing interests and that

“public harm would be done” if the ongoing-investigation file was made public. IPIB

unanimously approved the revised preliminary order on June 15, 2023, and it

became final agency action.

Ward sought judicial review pro se. The district court, after struggling some

to understand Ward’s complaint and limiting the scope of its review to issues

actually before the agency, concluded IPIB’s findings were supported by the

reviewable record and denied judicial review. Ward appealed to the supreme

court, which transferred the case to us for disposition.

Error Preservation. As a preliminary matter, we note the only issue

preserved for our review relates to judicial review of IPIB orders consolidating and

denying Ward’s complaints. Ward makes numerous other allegations in his

appellate brief, all of which are unpreserved, post-date IPIB’s ruling, or fall outside

the scope of chapter 17A, and we address them no further.1 See Iowa Code

§ 17A.19(7) (2023). We specifically decline to consider any alleged facts Ward

attempts to inject into the record that post-date the relevant agency action. See

id. § 17A.19(8)(b) (“The validity of agency action must be determined in

accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the

agency action at the time that action was taken.”). And we specifically reject

1 Many of Ward’s allegations seemingly relate to other body-cam footage sought

in Ward v. Altoona Police Department, No. 24-1245, 2025 WL _______ (Iowa Ct. App. July 23, 2025), which we also decide today. 4

Ward’s requests that we do various additional things like issue an advisory opinion

on whether certain crimes were committed. To the extent other improper

arguments are scattered in Ward’s appellate filings, including complaints about

judicial officers, we reject all we can discern on error-preservation grounds or

otherwise.

Standard of Review. We review for correction of errors at law. See

Ripperger v. Iowa Pub. Info. Bd., 967 N.W.2d 540, 548 (Iowa 2021). In our review

of the district court’s ruling on judicial review, “[w]e will apply the standards of

section 17A.19(10) to determine if we reach the same result as the district court.”

Ghost Player, LLC v. Iowa Dep’t of Econ. Dev., 906 N.W.2d 454, 462 (Iowa 2018).

We ask whether the agency action “prejudiced the substantial rights of the

petitioner and the agency action fits one of the enumerated criteria included in Iowa

Code section 17A.19(10)(a)–(n).” Id. To the extent any fact-findings by the agency

are at issue, we review those for substantial evidence. Ripperger, 967 N.W.2d at

548–49.

Discussion. We conclude the district court correctly denied judicial review.

As to Ward’s first complaint (about the body-cam footage), IPIB made a credibility

finding when it determined there was no credible evidence that Altoona PD had

withheld or redacted any portion of the recording. The record contains no basis

from which we could discern an error of law or conclude that finding prejudiced

Ward’s rights under any of the grounds of section 17A.19(10). See Ghost Player,

906 N.W.2d at 462. As to Ward’s second complaint (about the ongoing-

investigation records), we discern no error at law. The Iowa Code, as interpreted

by the supreme court, generally permits law enforcement agencies to withhold 5

“[p]eace officers’ investigative reports.” Iowa Code § 22.7(5); Vaccaro v. Polk

Cnty., 983 N.W.2d 54, 60 (Iowa 2022). The Code does require a law enforcement

agency to supply the immediate facts and circumstances to a requester, and we

agree with the district court that IPIB did not err at law in concluding Altoona PD

satisfied that obligation. See Iowa Code § 22.7(5). And we broadly observe that

the balancing test set forth in our case law was reasonably deployed by IPIB. See

Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 232 (Iowa 2019) (requiring

consideration of whether “(1) a public officer is being examined, (2) the

communication was made in official confidence, and (3) the public interest would

suffer by disclosure” (citation omitted)); Vaccaro, 983 N.W.2d at 60 (noting the

balancing of these factors helps “to guard against the chilling effect public

disclosure could have on police investigations”). Having identified no error at law

or unreasonable agency action, we must affirm denial of judicial review.

AFFIRMED.