Judge allows Henry County deputy’s Brady-Giglio lawsuit to proceed

MT. PLEASANT — District Court Judge Tom Reidel of Iowa’s Seventh Judicial District denied Henry County Attorney Darin Stater’s motion to dismiss Deputy Carlos Lopez’s lawsuit over his placement on the Brady-Giglio list. The Court also granted part of Stater’s motion to strike, removing Lopez’s claims for actual damages and attorney’s fees.

Lopez, a deputy with the Henry County Sheriff’s Office, filed a petition for judicial review under Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1(25), which became effective July 1, 2024. The statute allows peace officers to challenge a prosecuting agency’s decision to place them on a Brady-Giglio list — a list of officers whose credibility may be compromised in court due to issues such as dishonesty or misconduct.

In his ruling issued March 24, 2025, Judge Reidel wrote, “A motion to dismiss is sustainable only when it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claims asserted.”

“If the viability of a claim is at all debatable, courts should not sustain a motion to dismiss,” he added.

Reidel determined that the legal questions raised by the case required further judicial review.

The judge wrote, “The Court must view Plaintiff’s allegations in the light most favorable to him, and in doing so, it is clear that this case presents several debatable issues regarding Chapter 80F.1 (25).”

He also found that the issues raised by the county attorney’s office in the Motion to Dismiss “are, essentially, questions of statutory interpretation.”

Lopez alleged that Stater lacked sufficient grounds to place him on the Brady-Giglio list. He argued that the decision followed an April 2023 incident and that Stater’s reasons for the listing were flawed.

The record shows that Stater placed Lopez on the list on Dec. 13, 2023, after an interview and internal review. Lopez requested reconsideration on Dec. 28, 2023, and Stater later reopened the review, requesting more information in July 2024. The sheriff and Lopez submitted responses, but Stater found the information insufficient and confirmed the placement.

In court filings, Stater stated that he placed Lopez on the list because Lopez made “false statements in an affidavit for search warrants and criminal complaints” and that “related inconsistent statements” raised concerns about Lopez’s “judgment, credibility, candor, and truthfulness.”

On behalf of Stater, Assistant County Attorney Steve Giebelhausen argued that Chapter 80F.1 (25) did not apply retroactively and asserted that the law was unconstitutional and did not create a private cause of action. Judge Reidel rejected these arguments at the motion to dismiss stage.

“Statutes are cloaked with a presumption of constitutionality,” he wrote in his judgment on the motion.

He further said that Stater bore a “heavy burden” to prove otherwise, further describing the burden as one “which is not appropriate for adjudication at the motion to dismiss stage of a proceeding.”

The Court also addressed Stater’s separate motion to strike Lopez’s claims for actual damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees. Judge Reidel cited Iowa Code Chapter 80F.1 (24)(i), which states: “This subsection does not create a private cause of action against a prosecuting agency or an employee of a prosecuting agency.”

Reidel noted that Lopez’s attorney conceded during oral arguments that the statute does not authorize attorney’s fees.

“Therefore, the Court finds that Respondent’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Paragraph 21 of the Petition, now paragraph 26 of the Amended Petition, is stricken,” the decision read.

He also addressed court costs, writing, “Court costs may likewise be awarded in a successful action for judicial review brought against the State under Iowa Code Chapter 17A other than for a rulemaking decision. For this reason, the Court finds that the motion to strike is premature and the Court reserves ruling on the same.”

Stater and Assistant County Attorney Steven Giebelhausen filed their official response to Lopez’s amended petition on March 31, 2025. They admitted to procedural facts, such as the dates of notice and placement, but denied that the placement lacked justification. The county’s answer denied each of Lopez’s legal claims and concluded by asking the Court to dismiss the case and award “such further relief as the Court deems just.”

Judge Reidel’s decision allows the case to proceed to the discovery phase, where both parties will gather evidence. The Court has not yet set a trial date. This lawsuit marks a significant test of the new provision in Iowa’s peace officer Bill of Rights and could help define how prosecutors and courts handle future Brady-Giglio disputes.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com