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of The (Cedar Rapids) Gazette, and Jared Strong, of the Carroll Times Herald, found many of the [local] policies were outdated – some still mentioned videotape – and inconsistent.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.
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.