What are you afraid of?

Posted on January 23, 2026 by Marty Ryan

As technology advances, law enforcement agencies seek innovative methods of utilizing newfound technology in the name of public safety. However, any legislative proposal that would change public access to the information acquired through those methods are met with strong opposition.

Twenty years ago, “In dicta from an Iowa Supreme Court decision from 2006, State v. Hajtic, the late Justice Jerry Larson (father of current Chief Justice Susan Christensen), speaking for a unanimous Court stated: ‘We believe electronic recording, particularly videotaping, of custodial interrogations should be encouraged, and we take this opportunity to do so.’”

“Most jurisdictions in the United States now record interrogations, including all federal law enforcement agencies, thirty states, and the District of Columbia.”  But not Iowa. The time for change is in 2026.

The Iowa Bar Association met with many stakeholders in 2009 to discuss the issue of electronically-recorded custodial interrogations. Although most stakeholders “support recording in principle,” concerns about the cost of implementation were expressed by several participants. Today, cost is no longer a legitimate concern.

A former legislator once explained Moore’s Law to me. “Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years, leading to increased computing power and decreased costs.”

I recently purchased a mini action dash camera from Menards for only $6.99 plus tax. The camera is not only a windshield mount, but has a clothing clip so that I may wear it like a police officer’s bodycam. It has a high-resolution HD 1080p video with 8 GB card. It comes with audio and has 90 minutes of rechargeable battery life. Also, I get an 11% rebate.

Not only is the cost of recording equipment decreasing, but practically every law enforcement officer in Iowa wears a bodycam. Currently, Iowa has no law regulating the use of body cameras on law enforcement officers. According to a 2025 article by the Iowa Newspaper Association, “Erin Jordan, of The (Cedar Rapids) Gazette, and Jared Strong, of the Carroll Times Herald, found many of the [local] policies were outdated – some still mentioned videotape – and inconsistent. About half did not acknowledge police video as a public record.”

A legislative measure that sets minimum standards for body cameras should be enacted, and it should include the use of bodycams in interviewing suspects in custody. Fancy equipment used by Hollywood directors is not necessary.

Randy Evans, executive director at Iowa of Freedom of Information Council, contends that “police videos regularly are deemed to be open public records.” That could be a factor in the fear that law enforcement, county attorneys and the Iowa Attorney General express in their opposition to supporting the recordings. “What do you have to fear” is a mantra that goes both ways.

Iowa Code section 22.7, subsection 5 is an exception to the Open Records law in which “officers’ investigative reports” and privileged records are exempt from public disclosure “if that information is part of an ongoing investigation.” At the present time, it appears as though investigations in Iowa seem to never cease. Language that makes custodial recordings accessible to defense attorneys should be a requirement for any legislative proposal.

Attempts in the past to amend section 5 of Chapter 22 have been met with strong resistance by a concerted effort of lobbyists representing police, sheriffs, and other agencies such as the Iowa Department of Public Safety and the Iowa Attorney General. For them, opposing any legislation changing the status quo is an affront to their ongoing need to be in control.

The last time a bill was considered that required the video and audio recording of custodial interrogations (House Study Bill 572 in 2014), the bill was intended to be a compromise between advocates and opponents. Unfortunately, the powerful law enforcement community persuaded lawmakers that the bill was a “solution looking for a problem.”

This year, House Republicans are preparing to prioritize a package they label “tough on crime.” Yet, due process does not seem to be a part of their parcel. Including a provision on requiring the video and audio taping of custodial interviews should be seen as a necessary constitutional safeguard.

Government employees, local, state, or federal, have added protection in the form of the federal Bill of Rights.  A government employee is provided due process of law, the right to confront witnesses, and all the other protections usually offered to criminal defendants.  What you may not know, is that in Iowa, anyone with a law enforcement certification is provided with an additional set of protections, such as an “interview of an officer who is the subject of the complaint shall, at a minimum, be audio recorded.”  The “Officer’s Bill of Rights,” which is embedded in section 80F.1 of the Iowa Code, should extend to all Iowans.

This article was previously published in the Prairie Progressive, January 2026.

***

Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.

Donate

Your support is appreciated.

Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan

2516 Lynner Dr.

Des Moines, IA 50310

Copyright (c) 2026. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.

 

 

Posted in Criminal Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“You’re in the wrong place!”

Posted on December 2, 2025 by Marty Ryan

Each year, for a period of about four or five years straight, a group of nine guys from around Denison, Iowa, traveled in a van to Kansas City to watch a Kansas City Royals game on a Saturday afternoon. I was a part of that group. Ray Rosener drove his family’s van, with John Henkelman in the front passenger seat. The others on the trip included Ray’s brother Joe, Tom Henkelman (no immediate relation to John), Lowell Schroeder, John O’Brien, Roger Fineran, one other Farmland Foods packinghouse worker, and me. Ray and his brother were the only two who didn’t work at Farmland.

The tenth seat in Ray’s van was reserved for several coolers full of ice-cold beer. I don’t think Ray drank, but the rest of us sure did. Some began as soon as the van pulled out of the Pla-Mor parking lot. I tried to wait until I could see St. Joe, Missouri, but a sign along the road referring travelers to St. Joseph’s Catholic Church was close enough.

We always had good seats on the lower level between first base and right field. I was not a novice to Royals games, having brought my family with me several times throughout the years. I knew the stadium inside and out – literally. (Our family took a tour of the stadium once when we were in Kansas City to bring the girls to Worlds of Fun and Oceans of Fun.) But if you have ever been to the stadium, you would know that the first level concourse looks the same from end to end. It wasn’t surprising that a beer man camped out next to our row. That led to John Henkelman having to go up the steps to the men’s room. “Wait, John. I’ll go with you.” I yelled. So, John and I go up the stairs, turn right and head down the concourse. I walked over to the entrance of the restroom and John said: “Where are you going?” “In here, of course.” I thought I was heading into the men’s room and he was taking a different entrance.

That’s not what happened. I walked straight into the women’s room. Women were screaming, pulling their pants up, pointing at me, and a nice old black woman told me that “you’re in the wrong place.” There were no partitions between the stools. Embarrassed, I turned and walked out the door, heading up to the men’s room. I made sure I was walking into the men’s room and felt relieved, figuratively and potentially literally. However, John had told every guy in the restroom about what I did. Every man in the place (and probably a few young boys) began laughing at me overwhelmingly. It was difficult to go. But eventually, I did.

John left me, and when I finished, I headed back down to our seats. By then, everyone in our group, the rows in front of us and behind us, and the beer man all knew. I’m not sure the right fielder wasn’t in on it. It could have been on the public address system. On the Monday after the game, half the employees in the packinghouse heard the story.

But it was a great game. Willie Wilson led off the bottom of the first inning with an inside-the-park home run. It was the only run of the game, as Dennis Leonard pitched a shutout of the Boston Red Sox. When we got to the van in the parking lot, it began to rain. And pour, it did.

One of our traditions was to stop at a smorgasbord restaurant in St. Joseph on the way home. The all-you-can-eat buffet proudly bragged about forty different salads (Jell-O included). There was roast beef, chicken, barbeque pork ribs, ham, meatloaf, and more. The dessert bar was not as loaded, but this group visited it, as well. Joe and I were the only ones that weighed less than two-hundred pounds. Most were probably over 250. Lowell was easily over 300 pounds and close to 400. On our last trip, the restaurant was closed. Is it any wonder?

On the last trip, Lowell had counted that he drank about thirty-three beers. When we disembarked from Ray’s van, Lowell asked if anyone wanted to join him for a nightcap at the Pla-Mor. I recall that I turned him down. I don’t think anyone took him up on the offer.

It dawned on me recently that I may be the last living participant in those trips to Royals’ games in Ray’s van. I’m not. Joe Rosener is 84-years old and living in northwest Iowa.

As much as I had to drink that day, it remains one of my favorite memories. Except for being in the wrong place.

You may download the box score to the game at ?attachment_id=2455

***

Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.

Donate

Your support is appreciated.

Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan

2516 Lynner Dr.

Des Moines, IA 50310

Copyright (c) 2025. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Caught off guard

Posted on October 8, 2025 by Marty Ryan

In 1997, when I was lobbying for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union (the forerunner to the ACLU of Iowa), a bill was introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives that would have allowed school officials to randomly conduct searches of students’ lockers. I didn’t think about it seriously because it was introduced by a Democrat, and Republicans controlled the chamber 54-46. The majority party rarely, if ever, allows a minority party member to sponsor a bill that is taken up for consideration.

Moreover, if the bill did move through the House, surely the Senate wouldn’t consider the bill since Republicans also maintained control in the upper chamber, 28-22.

I was so wrong! The bill, House File 141, was referred to the House Education Committee where it was assigned to a subcommittee consisting of the committee’s chairperson, ranking member, and a future Speaker of the House as the subcommittee’s chairperson.

Boring you to death is not my intention, so I’ll stop with the procedural mumbo-jumbo and get on with the problem. After having passed both chambers and blessed with the governor’s signature, making it law, the fun began for me.

The law covered more than just locker searches. Excuse me, locker “inspections.” The word “inspection” was intended to mean that it wasn’t a search. And, of course, the students did not ‘own’ the lockers, the school did: “Allowing students to use a separate lock on a locker, desk, or other facility or space owned by the school and provided to the student shall also not give rise to an expectation of privacy on a student’s part with respect to that locker, desk, facility, or space.”

I was invited to talk to a class of junior high school students on two different occasions on the same day shortly after the locker search law was enacted. While speaking to the first class, I mentioned that students have the right to stand by their assigned locker while the search is being conducted. I don’t think I said “inspection.” I wanted to make myself clear. [“An inspection under this subsection shall either occur in the presence of the students whose lockers are being inspected or the inspection shall be conducted in the presence of at least one other person.”]

One astute student raised her hand and bravely told me that the administration conducts searches of the lockers while the students are sitting at their desks. I told the class that was illegal. I should have known school administers would locate the loophole (conducted in the presence of at least one other person). As a lobbyist, I attempted to get that language out of the bill. Representatives Bill Brand and Keith Kreiman introduced an amendment to get rid of the ‘one other person’ language and require students to be present.

As I began to talk to the next group of students, an administrator took up a chair next to the door to listen to what I had to say. I didn’t back down from what I had to say, but there were no astute students in the second group.

Now, I find out that some schools are built without lockers. Everyone uses backpacks. Sure, a student can rent a locker from the school; they might actually wear a coat to school and need a place to store it between the first bell and the final bell.

What! Some schools no longer have bells? Must have gone out the window like the lockers, due process, and other constitutional rights.

***

Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.

Donate

Your support is appreciated.

Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan

2516 Lynner Dr.

Des Moines, IA 50310

Copyright (c) 2025. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.

 

Posted in Issues, Privacy, Youth | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Big Ten

Posted on September 6, 2025 by Marty Ryan

Six of the nine United States Supreme Court justices are Catholic. Even Neil Gorsuch, who identifies as an Episcopalian, was raised Catholic. This is an important demographic because of at least one case that could make it to the High Court within a couple of years.

There is movement in the United States at this time where Christian Nationals are attempting to have Stone v. Graham overturned. Stone v. Graham is a 1980 United States Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court held that a Kentucky statute “requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose, and is therefore unconstitutional.”

The Kentucky statute in question required “the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State.”

The Court concluded that the Kentucky law violated the first prong of the Lemon test. The Lemon test consists of three prongs. “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster `an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”

Louisiana enacted a bill this year that requires the commandments to be posted in every Louisiana public classroom, from kindergarten through college. Many legal experts are predicting that this law will make it to the United States Supreme Court. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, “blocked the state law from taking effect, unanimously ruling that Louisiana’s state-sponsored-religion law was ‘facially unconstitutional.’” The Fifth Circuit is considered by many legal experts to be the most conservative of all thirteen federal circuit courts, so I can’t imagine the matter can get to the Supreme Court. My reasoning is that, because of the Catholic majority mentioned earlier, there should be one major reason for the Court to reject any appeal.

There is a difference between the Ten Commandments required in Louisiana and throughout the Bible Belt and the traditional Catholic version, and the difference is significant.

First of all, the numbering alignment is off from the beginning. Catholics and Lutherans follow the numberings created by Saint Augustine of Hippa (the guy who said, “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet), in the Fifth Century. Augustine combined the First and Second Commandments, similar to the grouping found in the Talmud. The King James Version, created in 1611, over a century and one-half after the first Bible was printed by the Gutenberg Press, separates the redundancy of Exodus 20: 2-3.

Next, there is no Catholic commandment about ‘graven images’ found in the Protestant Second Commandment. The First Commandment of Catholics states that there “shalt be no strange gods before Me.” Recently, the Catholic version substituted the Sabbath for “The Lord’s Day.” Also, the Augustine version separates the final two commandments of St. James versions into two separate commandments pertaining to coveting. After all, coveting a person should be more sinful than coveting a neighbor’s ox or an ass.

A Catholic kid in public school, and attending CCD, or Confraternity of Christian Doctrine classes during the week is going to be confused by being exposed to different versions of the same principles.

But are these concerns going to weigh into a decision for the Court to consider, either in accepting or deciding a case on this issue? Or, will the Alito and Thomas side of the bench cave to the popularity of the prevailing side as they have in recent cases?

“The 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Santa Fe vs. Doe) says it all, ‘School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’”

State Rep. Jim Olsen, an Oklahoma Republican after introducing a bill in the Oklahoma House Chamber last year said: “The Ten Commandments is one of the foundations of our nation.” That’s a weak assessment of our country’s infrastructure. The Ten Commandments are not even close to being a foundation of our nation. There are too many varieties of commandments to be considered a brick in a weak foundation.

The solid foundations of our nation include the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, “known collectively as the Charters of Freedom.” There are no alternative documents. If the United States should post anything in a classroom it should be the Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment highlighted.

This article was originally published in The Prairie Progressive, September, 2025 issue.

***

Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.

Donate

Your support is appreciated.

Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan

2516 Lynner Dr.

Des Moines, IA 50310

Copyright (c) 2025. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.

 

 

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

George’s cherry tree

Posted on July 22, 2025 by Marty Ryan

George Powers had two cherry trees on his property. He had a few other fruit trees, but those trees didn’t produce like the cherry trees. George lived two houses south of us. I would walk through Johanna Scanlon’s property next door, go over the fence, which was almost hidden by undergrowth and up against some of the best rhubarb in town, and onto George’s property. The cherry trees were just on the other side of the fence.

I know George didn’t plant the trees; they were fully grown and I don’t think he lived there with his family all that long.

I would climb into the tree and sit on a branch, reach out and begin harvesting cherries, spitting seeds onto the ground beneath me. These cherries were the bright red tart type, not the meaty dark red variety found in grocery stores. If they were poisoned with chemicals, I wouldn’t have cared. I never got sick, even considering the amount of fruit I ate.

A memory spark ignited when I saw cherry juice at COSTCO. Two half-gallon jugs cost $9.99. To me, that’s a bargain. Since I was a kid, I have not tasted anything close to the taste of George’s cherries. The cherry juice at COSTCO has all the tartness of George’s cherries. And the juice at COSTCO has no added sugars or preservatives. The only ingredient is tart cherry juice. I mix it with a bit of water; carbonated water, when I have it on hand.

Cherry is my favorite flavor. Whenever I’m in a place that has a soda fountain, I will always order a cherry phosphate. I ate Luden’s and Smith Brother’s cherry cough drops even when I didn’t have a cough. I love cherry pie, cherry turnovers, and cherry everything. Stephanie and I had cherry cider at our wedding, purchased from Small’s Fruit Farm in Mondamin, Iowa.

We have apple trees, a pear tree, a peach tree, and blackberry and black raspberry bushes in our yard. However, for some reason, we have no cherry trees. We did have a cherry bush. It was weird; there were no stems, just small cherries. It may have been a Canadian variety. If we did have a cherry tree in the back yard, I can imagine some kid would sit in a tree in the back yard spitting seeds out on the lawn.

One day, I was sitting in George’s tree enjoying the cherries when George came out on the back porch and yelled at me. “You damn kids get out of that tree!” I was the only one there. ‘Ha!’ I thought. ‘The joke’s on you. There’s no one here but me and a few birds.’ I was going to wait for him to come down off the porch before I made a decision. He went back into the house.

Oh, how I miss those cherries.

***

Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.

Donate

Your support is appreciated.

Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan

2516 Lynner Dr.

Des Moines, IA 50310

Copyright (c) 2025. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Posted in Food | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Grounds For Divorce

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Marty & Stephanie

There are two occasions when women have a certain “glow.” The first is pregnancy. The second is when a bad marriage finally ends in divorce. The vows that are spoken, “for better or worse; in sickness and in health; ‘til death do us part’” are a serious commitment. But when only one party honors those vows, the vows have been essentially voided. The relationship is unhealthy and should come to an end.

A prime example is the current crumbling marriage between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP). There had been a nurturing and productive relationship during the many years of Iowa being the first in the nation to hold its caucuses. Iowans embraced the role that slowly developed into a statewide system of vetting presidential hopefuls. This enabled any candidate, some from very diverse backgrounds to launch a successful campaign. But caucuses are much more than simply showing support for candidates. It’s a way for community members to gather and connect over problems and concerns; to work developing platforms based in current issues; and select delegates to bring these concerns from the local level, to the regional, state and national level. It is grassroots; therefore, it naturally evolves and cannot be corrupted or controlled.

It may be hard to believe, but the Iowa Caucuses have been around since the late 1800s. In the past, caucuses were held to select candidates for local offices. It wasn’t until 1968 that Iowa’s Democratic leadership (Gov. Harold Hughes) changed the format to select delegates to conventions based upon an elector’s personal preference for President.

The first two caucuses after the procedural changes, 1972 and 1974, resulted in “uncommitted” as the winner of the Iowa Democratic Caucuses in its debut and sequel. The media was not yet a major player in the nomination process in Iowa. Theoretically, presidential candidates took note and realized that Iowa voters want more meat from campaigns. Spinning the usual political rhetoric wouldn’t work in Iowa. Candidates toured the state and met future constituents in small venues like coffee houses, town halls or even living rooms, and were put on the spot for where they honestly stood on issues. It was a grueling method that brought national attention to candidates that wouldn’t have made it out of the gate.

During those first eight years of the caucuses, little attention was given to the uniqueness of the process. Although Edmund Muskie was declared the winner, he “won with 35.5% of the vote. But 35.8% of Iowa voters signaled that they were uncommitted. Unlike what many think of the caucus results of the past, Jimmy Carter did not come out in front at the Iowa Caucuses in 1974. He came in second after “uncommitted,” 37% to 28%.

Over time, Iowa Democrats developed a pattern of choosing minorities, such as the first black President, Obama; a strong woman candidate, like Hilary Clinton; and the first openly gay man to run, Pete Buttigieg. The DNC wanted to control who was selected, for example, white, male career politicians like Joe Biden. He came in fifth in Iowa, so like a jealous, frustrated spouse, the DNC plotted its elimination campaign. Afterall, wasn’t Iowa just a “fly-over state” not worthy of the attention and focus? It was time to search for a trophy wife.

More than 90 percent of Iowa caucus-goers are white, according to entrance polls” conducted in 2020. DNC leadership wanted to begin the process of electing a Democratic candidate for president “in states that are less white, especially given the importance of Black voters as Democrats’ most loyal electoral base.” Wait a minute! Organized Labor was the Democrats most loyal base. Oh, that’s right, Labor, like Iowa, cannot be controlled. So, the DNC moved on to an attractive southern belle that welcomed and submitted to the will of the DNC. South Carolina was courted and dubbed the DNC new lead off.

Iowa, like many spouses before her, worked hard to make the marriage work. Even agreeing to use an app during the final lead-off Democratic Caucus in 2020. There wasn’t time to test the app or do the necessary statewide training needed for it to be a success. It was a failure before it even launched. It was also an opportunity for the DNC to paint Iowa as an archaic, backwards, state that is no longer worthy of its historic, political influence.

The DNC isn’t the first spouse to go through a mid-life crisis; making poor decisions to prove its vitality. Today, a (former) DNC vice-president recently resigned after an idea to “court” new candidates to run against incumbents – disloyalty. The Party is having financial problems and may need to take out a line of credit. One donor quipped: “The thing that’s clear to a lot of us is that the party never really learned its lesson in 2016. They worked off the same playbook and the same ineffective strategies and to what end?”

It’s time for Iowa to get its glow on. Even if the DNC doesn’t understand or appreciate the value of the grassroots political process, it’s what this country desperately needs. Neighbors gathering together to support and build communities. Iowa needs to do what countless underappreciated spouses have done in the pass. Kick the bum out and build a strong, healthy future.

This article first appeared in the July 2025 issue of The Prairie Progressive

***

Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.

Donate

Your support is appreciated.

Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan

2516 Lynner Dr.

Des Moines, IA 50310

Copyright (c) 2025. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment