ACLU and University of Iowa Conduct Case Study in Institutional Contempt

The ACLU of Iowa and the University of Iowa submitted public records requests to agencies across the state for information on ALPR systems. View the full report here. The result: predictable denials, dubious legal assertions, and—remarkably—the first release of actual logs in Iowa.

Through the Curtain

The report summarizes what agencies provided:

In total, we obtained records of 13 search logs, 4 organizational audit logs, and 15 transparency portals. Agencies often claimed that these categories were confidential. For example, 10 agencies claimed their search logs were confidential, 10 claimed their audit logs were confidential, and 2 nonsensically claimed their transparency portals were confidential.

Translation for haveibeenflocked.com terminology:

1. Portal logs: Thirteen of 48 agencies provided heavily redacted portal logs containing only user UUIDs (e.g., 1dde314b-b11e-4ca1-be02-c74876615f97), search dates, camera counts, and reasons.^[1] Agencies: Carlisle, Clinton, Clive, Coralville, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Dubuque, Indianola, North Liberty, Story County, Urbandale, University of Iowa, West Des Moines.

2. Organization audit logs: Warren County Sheriff’s Department was the only agency to provide these.

3. Network logs: Zero agencies provided these.

The “transparency” portal serves its actual purpose: transparency theater. The agencies successfully exploited information asymmetry to misrepresent compliance—even the ACLU and University of Iowa accepted heavily redacted portal logs as legitimate disclosure and moved on.

Behind the Curtain

The report notes agencies “nonsensically” claimed transparency portals as confidential—only one agency, Davenport, actually made this claim explicitly, though several claimed they didn’t maintain the portal. This is despite the portals being accessible on the public internet and explicitly displaying the notice: “Data is owned by [agency].”

Davenport’s blanket denial:

Reference FOIA request PD-1759-2025, the items requested are confidential under Iowa state code and are guarded under previous rulings by the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB).

This is lazy fabrication. Iowa law provides no confidentiality for these records. The Iowa Public Information Board has issued no formal guidance on these items. The legal term for this response is “making shit up”—evidenced by the complete failure to cite any actual legal basis.

Davenport PD’s response is a bureaucratic middle finger to the public and the law they claim to uphold.^[2]

Minor gripe: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is federal. In Iowa, it’s the Iowa Open Records Act, or Chapter 22. If you’re going to ignore the law’s substance, at least get its name right.

How to Violate the Law Two Ways at Once

Clive deserves its own section for accidentally admitting to law violations through contradictory claims.

In response to the request for search logs, Clive wrote:

The City does not maintain this type of record. Even if the City were found to maintain such a record based on its ability to access the Flock Safety system, the information requested is considered “intelligence data” such that it constitutes a “confidential record” that is prohibited from disclosure pursuant to Iowa Code Section 22.7(55) and Iowa Code Chapter 692…

This contradicts Iowa Code Chapter 692, which requires agencies to maintain logs.

Specifically, Chapter 692 mandates that for every dissemination of intelligence data, “[t]he agency maintains a list of the agencies, organizations, or persons receiving the intelligence data and the date and purpose of the dissemination.”

Clive knows this. In October 2024, it denied a request for these exact logs by asserting the same basis for confidentiality and adding:

The City strictly complies with its requirements under Iowa Code Chapter 22 and Iowa Code Chapter 692, and accordingly, it must respond in the negative to this request.

By now denying it maintains the logs it claims it must keep but cannot disclose, Clive admits to violating the law—one way or another. They are either failing to create mandatory intelligence records, or they are lying about their existence to avoid public scrutiny.

Whose Law is it Anyway?

These nonsensical denials obscure ongoing violations of state and federal law. Agencies routinely disclose legally protected intelligence data, criminal justice information, and criminal history information to commercial and government partners in violation of statutory restrictions.

This falls under the purview of the Iowa Public Information Board and the Iowa Department of Public Safety. Neither has shown any inclination to enforce compliance, so agencies fabricate legal justifications to deny public access to records.

If a member of the public attempts to complain, the Iowa Public Information Board sends this notice:

The IPIB normally allows brief (under five minutes) comments from the parties. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please reply to this email and indicate your agreement to this statement:

__ I want to address the Board and respond to any questions Board members may have when the initial processing of this complaint is considered. In the event this complaint proceeds to a contested case, I waive any objection that I might have concerning personal investigation of this complaint by a Board member.

The waiver pairs well with this email from Clive’s city attorney to IPIB director Erika Eckley,^[3] after Eckley refused to investigate a complaint about Clive’s false assertion of confidentiality:

Welcome to Iowa, where the exemptions are made up and the law doesn’t matter.