Linn County prosecutors will work to address gaps in laws in setting priorities for next year

CEDAR RAPIDS — A prosecutor plans to propose an assault by criminal groping bill to address a gap in Iowa’s law concerning these more “traumatic” crimes.

Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks, a legislative committee member of the Iowa County Attorneys Association, said the association didn’t make assault by criminal groping a priority bill this year, after it received some pushback from lawmakers in the House.

However, Maybanks said this year, in preparing for the next legislative session, his office has set its own priorities. He hopes to work with legislators to address the groping bill, an attempt to commit invasion of privacy, and laws around examination of public records.

  Buy Photo

The crime of groping another person’s intimate areas — buttocks, breast or groin — can currently only be charged as a simple assault, which is the same as pushing or shoving someone, Maybanks said. Under Iowa law, it’s not considered a sexual assault, but it can be traumatic for victims and could indicate the offender has a more serious problem.

Under the simple assault misdemeanor charge, the penalty is up to 30 days in jail, but if it’s not flagged by a prosecutor as requiring jail time, it could go through court without the chance to request jail time. In those cases, the offender could just pay a fine, Maybanks said.

With a simple misdemeanor, there also is no option for probation or treatment to address a more serious issue.

Maybanks said since the legislature failed to move forward with this bill, there have been several incidents in Linn County in which prosecutors couldn’t charge a person with a more serious offense, or a jury found the offender guilty of a lesser crime because there was no other charging option.

He cited a few examples:

Maybanks pointed out another scenario that prosecutors frequently encounter. That’s when 14- and 15-year-old victims are groped by adults who are in a position of power and the only charging option is a simple assault. The assault by criminal groping charge would be the more appropriate offense, he said.

In the proposed law, assault by criminal groping would a serious misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine.

Maybanks said the proposed groping charge could be added to the harassment code section as: “A person commits harassment when, with intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person, the person intentionally touches, feels, or gropes the clothed or unclothed inner thigh, groin, buttock, or breast of another.“

Missing ‘attempt’ to commit

Another Linn County Attorney’s Office priority will be to propose an amended section of the invasion of privacy statute to allow an attempt to commit the crime. Under the proposal, it would have the same penalty as the completed act.

An invasion of privacy charge requires a person to actually view, photograph or film another person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying their sexual desires, but doesn’t hold those accountable who “attempt” the crime, Maybanks said. A person either fails to complete the act or they are successful, but delete or destroy the evidence, which is required for a prosecutor to file the charge or obtain a conviction, he said.

The proposed bill would add “attempts to view or film another person.” Under the proposal, the penalty for either charge would be an aggravated misdemeanor and would carry up to a two-year prison sentence.

Open records requests

The office’s other proposed bill involves the examination of public records when an open records request is made to the county attorney’s office. Maybanks said these requests have increased in recent years, mostly due to national and international media companies producing podcasts or true crime shows. He said the requests can be for “voluminous” materials — bodycam videos and other videos — which his office possesses from criminal cases and trials.

Those materials are usually provided to prosecutors by the investigative agencies — law enforcement — who would be the original custodians.

Maybanks said the requests are burdening his understaffed office to comply and in some cases, large sections of the materials must be redacted because they contain confidential information. There is a risk of failing to disclose necessary material and inadvertently providing protected material because there is so much to go through, he said.

If the office doesn’t comply, the consequences are more severe for government bodies operated by elected officials — like county attorneys — than for other government bodies — like police — who are more likely the original custodians. Maybanks said repercussions could include removal from office if he were found to be in non-compliance.

Maybanks is proposing an amendment that would allow government bodies, such as a county attorney’s office, who are secondary lawful custodians of records to defer the decision about whether to disclose the public records to the “original lawful custodian” of the records.

According to the amendment, a court could grant an injunction restraining the examination “to determine whether the government body that was the original lawful custodian of the public record will comply with the request” to examine the records. The original custodian would then relieve any other government body in possession of the public records from the obligation to provide those materials.

The 2026 Iowa legislative session begins Jan. 12.

Trish Mehaffey covers state and federal courts for The Gazette

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com