Bart Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney

── Bart Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 25–0366 Submitted February 11, 2026—Filed May 1, 2026 Bart Richmond, Appellee, vs. Jefferson County Attorney, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Jeffrey Farrell, judge. A county attorney appeals the district court’s ruling denying his constitutional challenge to a sheriff’s Brady-Giglio list appeal under Iowa Code § 80F.1(25). Affirmed. McDermott, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined. Chauncey T. Moulding, Jefferson County Attorney, and K. Elizabeth Estey (argued), Assistant Jefferson County Attorney, for appellant. Charles Gribble (argued) of Gribble Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellee. W. Charles Smithson, West Des Moines, for amicus curiae Twenty-Eight Iowa State Senators.  2 McDermott, Justice. In this case, the Jefferson County Sheriff, Bart Richmond, filed a petition under Iowa Code § 80F.1(25) (2025) to have his name removed from the Jefferson County Attorney’s Brady-Giglio list. A Brady-Giglio list is a record maintained by a prosecutor’s office that contains the names of law enforcement officers who have a known history of misconduct, dishonesty, or other integrity issues that could compromise their credibility while testifying. The district court granted the sheriff’s petition and ordered the county attorney to remove the sheriff from the list. On appeal, the county attorney argues that the list removal procedures in § 80F.1(25) unconstitutionally interfere with his due process obligations to criminal defendants and violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. I. In April 2024, two Fairfield police officers arrested a suspect for driving while intoxicated. A Jefferson County sheriff’s deputy arrived to assist. As one officer questioned the driver, another officer handcuffed a passenger. The passenger and the sheriff’s deputy then got into an argument. Body camera footage shows that the deputy grabbed the handcuffed passenger and forcefully shoved his head down toward the vehicle’s trunk. Holding the passenger in that position, the deputy moved his face inches from the passenger’s and yelled, “You know what? You’re not going to tell me what I can and can’t do! Do you understand that young man?” As the passenger proclaimed apologies with his face pressed against the trunk, the deputy continued, “You better understand it. . . . And you know what? You’re going to learn what respect is!” About a week later, the Jefferson County Attorney, Chauncey Moulding, reviewed the footage. He emailed Richmond to ask if the deputy’s conduct violated the sheriff’s office’s use-of-force policy. After receiving no response for  3 six days, Moulding emailed again, stating he would interpret further silence as an admission that the deputy’s actions were consistent with office policy. Although Richmond never replied to Moulding, Richmond and his chief deputy met with the deputy in question that same day and ordered him to undergo de- escalation and communication retraining. When Richmond failed to respond, Moulding sent the footage to the Keokuk County Attorney for an independent review. Richmond only learned of this outside investigation days later when Moulding’s assistant called to request a copy of the sheriff’s office’s use-of-force policy. Surprised by the request, Richmond initially refused to provide it, insisting that the Keokuk County Attorney contact him directly. Four days later, Moulding personally ordered Richmond to produce the policy, threatening a judici