Worrisome power shift

County attorneys can now lose case jurisdiction to attorney general

A recent email from the Iowa attorney general’s (AG’s) office to Greene County assistant attorney Laura Snider is of great concern to Greene County’s attorney Thomas Laehn. That’s because it displays a quandary created by the state’s 2023 government reorganization act.

Much of Snider’s work in the county attorney’s office deals with Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) cases. Iowa law puts county attorneys in charge of such cases, particularly when it comes to deciding whether to recommend that a court remove a child from a parent’s custody.

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also plays a role in those decisions. The email from the attorney general’s office included a proposed agreement for Snider to sign which would establish new procedures for how a CINA case would be handled if the Greene County attorney’s office and HHS disagree in a particular case.

Because Iowa law gives county attorneys legal power to play a role in CINA cases, Laehn objects to the fact that the agreement form went to Snider to sign, as juvenile court prosecutor, rather to himself, since any agreement should require his consent. He also noted what he considered to be the condescending tone of the email: for example, the proposed agreement set deadlines for the county prosecutor to meet, but the attorney general has no such requirement.

The agreement also had no expiration date or termination provision, and Laehn believes it would, therefore, bind his successors in perpetuity.

The email with the proposed agreement points to a serious problem raised by the government reorganization act, in Laehn’s opinion. Buried in the 2023 bill is a provision that expressly gives the Iowa attorney general, rather than the county attorney where the case originated, the authority to take over the prosecution of any criminal case. The AG can direct a county attorney to then work with the AG’s office on the case, in effect making a county attorney an assistant attorney general.

Laehn correctly notes that an Iowa county attorney is elected by the voters of his or her county. If he or she is required to become an assistant attorney general, to whom is the county attorney then accountable: the county’s voters or the state attorney general?

Laehn has no doubt about that answer: “The county attorney works for the people of his or her county, not the attorney general.”

The state of Iowa has always had area prosecutors available to provide help for county attorneys—IF a county attorney asks for it, Laehn says. But now the Iowa attorney general is empowered to take over a criminal case whether the county attorney asks for help or not.

Laehn points out the potential for corruption under the new requirement. For example, what if a wealthy and generous political supporter of the attorney general, or the governor, were arrested or arraigned by county law officials, and the attorney general decided to take over the case and dismiss it? What recourse would the county have in such an instance?

A county attorney can’t serve two masters, Laehn said. The legislature “has very clearly given the AG the authority to take my cases, and the legislature has left me with no authority to continue with their prosecution without the AG’s blessing. . . . It would violate a person’s constitutional rights if I were to proceed with a prosecution after their case had already been dismissed.”

Laehn wonders whether some of the legislators didn’t realize what they were doing when they specifically empowered the attorney general to take over county attorneys’ prosecutions of criminal cases. It’s something that deserves revisiting in the 2026 legislative session.