The Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday to determine what parts of a police report are open to the public.
Local activist Harvey Harrison is requesting use-of-force reports from the Des Moines Police Department (DMPD) to determine if the department is racially biased against the Black community. By corroborating the reports with videos and testimony from Des Moines’ Black population, Harrison can determine if officers are indeed filing reports each time they use force.
In 2024, a district court ruled that the reports should be disclosed, but with officer names and any injuries they sustained redacted. The city appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, citing conflict with other legal requirements.
A use-of-force report has two pages. The first page contains basic incident information and an officer’s account of why they used force. The second contains signatures from supervisors who reviewed the report to determine if disciplinary action needs to be taken.
The individual reports are aggregated into summaries that DMPD releases online.
An officer’s recollection of an incident where they used force could be considered a statement, not basic information, said City Attorney Shellie Mackel.
Mackel said that DMPD needs to keep officer statements confidential in the case of investigations. If the use-of-force report is disclosed and someone makes a complaint about force, the officer can then sue the city for releasing confidential, protected information.
Harrison’s attorney, Gina Messamer, said that the city attorneys are misinterpreting his request. He is only looking for the basic information on the first page of the report, something that can’t be accessed through public arrest reports.
“[The full report] has never been the scope of Mr. Harrison's request. Mr. Harrison is only requesting the underlying factual information that was filled out by the officer,” Messamer said.
Mackel notes that in the arguments Harrison presents, he gave out-of-state examples of departments disclosing the full report. She said that means the city may have to disclose the chain of review in the future.
“I don't understand why that argument would even be made if he didn't want access to page two,” Mackel said.
Because supervisors already review the reports for disciplinary action, Mackel said that makes them internal documents — something that can’t be accessed by the public.
Given the time elapsed, Messamer said that Harrison may not be able to access body camera footage if it was not preserved.
“We're also now five years out, so I have a hard time believing that anything is still an open case,” Messamer said. “I think we can probably work those type of things out between counsel and I without needing to extend this proceeding further.”
Initially, the city said that the whole of the report could not be disclosed. When pressed by the justices, Mackel said that the basic information — without the officer’s narrative of the event — could be released.
