It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up

Here’s betting District Judge Adria Kester does not read the Aspen Daily News. That Colorado newspaper’s front-page slogan declares, “If you don’t want it printed, don’t let it happen.”

What happened to Judge Kester occurred outside of her usual venue — the 22 courthouses of north-central and northwest Iowa where, until recently, she served as chief judge of the Second Judicial District.

It happened when that Boone County resident found herself on the other side of the law, as a criminal defendant.

Now, she is keeping the story alive by filing a civil lawsuit seeking special treatment she likely did not accord to those who appeared before her.

Judge Kester’s encounter with the criminal justice system began on the night of November 4, 2025, when Boone County sheriff’s deputies arrested her outside of Boone.

Two motorists called 911 and said a pickup truck was traveling eastbound in the westbound lanes of U.S. Highway 30. One reported the driver appeared slumped over the steering wheel and possibly unconscious.

The criminal charges state that deputies found a cup containing what smelled like alcohol next to the driver’s seat. They also reported the driver was unable to stand without assistance.

The officers obtained a court warrant to take a sample of her blood. She was booked into the county jail around 4 a.m., and her mug shot was made.

Boone County Sheriff Andy Godzicki expressed relief no one was injured that night. He said the arrest created a difficult situation because he and his staff know the Kester family. The judge’s husband is a Boone police officer.

But Godzicki made clear he instructed his staff to treat the judge as any other criminal suspect.

A month later, Judge Kester pleaded guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated and was fined $625. She also received a suspended one-year jail sentence. She was not required to serve jail time because she received credit for the night of her arrest and attended drunken-driver classes. 

Kester resigned as chief judge but remains a district judge. The Iowa Judicial Branch placed her on paid suspension while officials investigate her conduct. Eight months later, that investigation continues. Ultimately, the Iowa Supreme Court will decide whether to impose any administrative punishment.

Kester collected $172,106 in gross pay and $9,356 in travel reimbursements in fiscal year 2025.

None of this is recent news. But there is more.

The latest developments highlight two recurring tensions in Iowa and beyond — the conflict between personal privacy and public access to government records, and the pursuit of special treatment by those in power.

Judge Kester returned to court in Boone County three weeks ago, filing a civil lawsuit against the county and sheriff. Plaintiff Kester asks that another judge enjoin public officials from releasing records related to her arrest and conviction. She also requests that a judge seal from public view the court records of her lawsuit.

She argues the continued availability of her arrest information, body-camera video, blood test results and court records would not serve any public interest or fill any “government accountability gap.” Instead, she claims releasing the records would cause her substantial and irreparable injury and force her to relive the trauma of her arrest.

She also questions the legitimacy of a request from Julia Hayes, who she described as “independent media,” for access to various records about the case. The judge claims Hayes should not receive the records because she cites only a general interest in transparency. 

Yet, Iowa’s public records law does not limit records access to journalists, affiliated or otherwise, any more than it requires people seeking access to explain why they want public records or how they will use them. The law gives every person the right to access and use public records for any reason, or none at all.

Lastly, the judge’s lawsuit states the public would gain nothing from disclosure of the requested records, so her personal privacy interest outweighs the societal need for information.

The judge is as wrong on the law as her request is intemperate.

Public officials, influential figures and prominent institutions know openness goes with the territory. When questions about temperament, conduct, competency or judgment arise, they understand more information is needed, not less. Transparency promotes accountability and public acceptance.

The need becomes greater when individuals and institutions wield significant authority. And this is why our society expects transparency even if it sometimes comes with personal costs. 

Society understands that people charged with crimes, involved in accidents or caught in traumatic events often wish those experiences could remain private, just as they wish they had never occurred.

But experience has taught us that often, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.” 

That is why the Iowa Legislature built this into the public records law for cases like the one pending in Boone County. Lawmakers wrote in the statute: “In actions brought under this section, the district court shall consider the policy that free and open examination of public records is generally in the public interest, even if it causes inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others.”

Our Legislature acknowledged that supplanting accountability with secrecy fails us all. The Legislature understood citizens cannot evaluate public officials if important facts become state secrets and government decides what to release.

This need for transparency reaches an apex when it involves judicial officers. Judges make decisions affecting personal freedoms, financial well-being, family relationships, and even life and death. They hold this authority because the community trusts them to exercise sound judgment and uphold the rule of law.

Beyond that, our system of government relies on an independent judiciary to check the legislative and executive branches, leaving the courts accountable only to the people. 

But if the free flow of information about the courts becomes subject to the personal preferences of a plaintiff, a defendant, a judge, or a person acting as all three, neither the courts nor the people can do their jobs.

It’s a shame Judge Kester has not seen the light. ♦