Reimbursing Deputy Lopez is in public's interest

To the Henry County Board of Supervisors and Editor of the Southeast Iowa Union:

I am writing as an ordinary citizen who is concerned about the situation involving Deputy Lopez and the question of whether the county may reimburse him for the legal costs he had to pay after challenging his placement on the Brady—Giglio list. I want to be very clear that I am not a lawyer and not an expert in legal research. I am simply a resident using publicly available tools on the internet to understand what “in the public interest” means and whether the county truly lacks the authority to help an employee who was found to be treated unfairly.

From what I can find, Iowa law does not contain a single, universal statutory definition of “public interest.” It is used as a general legal principle, not a fixed rule. One legal source explains that “public interest” is a principle used for decisions affecting the well‑being of society and that it “does not have a single, rigid legal definition,” functioning instead as a flexible standard for the common good. LegalClarity.org

Because the law does not define the term in one place, public bodies often interpret “public interest” by looking at broad ideas such as fairness, community welfare, taxpayer impact, and the proper functioning of government. According to my research, these are not statutory requirements, but common‑sense principles used when the law provides no fixed definition. Therefore, determining what is in the public interest should involve various stakeholders, including government officials, community leaders, and the public itself. Often, it requires balancing different opinions and needs to find solutions that benefit the majority.

When I look at this situation through those principles, it seems clear that reimbursing Deputy Lopez does serve the public interest. A judge ruled that the county attorney acted with an “abuse of discretion” when placing the deputy on the Brady—Giglio list. Even though Deputy Lopez won his case, he still lost financially. He had to pay thousands of dollars to defend himself even though the court found he had done nothing wrong. That outcome does not reflect fairness, justice, or the proper functioning of government.

This situation also creates a dangerous possibility for any county in Iowa. If a county attorney can place an officer on a Brady—Giglio list for reasons that appear personal, and the county is then told it cannot help the officer defend himself, the county attorney gains enormous, unchecked power. Officers may begin to fear the county attorney more than they fear failing the public. That is not healthy for any community.

Other counties have handled similar situations differently. Jefferson County reimbursed its sheriff for legal expenses after a court found he had also been placed on a Brady—Giglio list

without proper cause. This shows that counties have supported law enforcement officers who were wrongly accused, and that doing so can be consistent with the public interest

I believe that Henry County residents believe in fairness. Innocent people should not be punished. Furthermore, public officials should not be allowed to misuse their authority. And supporting honest law enforcement officers is in the public interest.

I urge the Board to continue seeking legal clarity and to stand up for what is right. The public interest is not served when an innocent deputy is left to pay the price for someone else’s abuse of power. The public interest is served when justice, fairness, and accountability guide our decisions.

Sincerely,

Donna Byers, Mt. Pleasant