Iowa
Clark puts up 28 points, 15 assists for No. 3 Iowa in 95-68 romp past Michigan in Big Ten semifinals
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Caitlin Clark had 28 points to pad her all-time NCAA scoring total and matched a season high with 15 assists to lead third-ranked Iowa past Michigan 95-68 in the Big Ten Tournament semifinals on Saturday.
Hannah Stuelke scored 16 points, Kate Martin added 13 and Sydney Affolter had the best all-around game with 12 points, eight assists, seven rebounds and two steals as the Hawkeyes (28-4) moved within one win of a third straight conference tournament title.
Iowa will play Nebraska for the championship on Sunday. The fifth-seeded Huskers beat eighth-seeded Maryland on Saturday to reach the final for the first time in 10 years.
With fifth-year guard Gabbie Marshall again spearheading the effort, the Hawkeyes were locked in and maxed out on defense. They quieted first team All-Big Ten pick Laila Phelia for most of the game after her season-high 30 points fueled an upset of 12th-ranked Indiana in the quarterfinals on Friday.
Phelia had 21 points and seven assists, Jordan Hobbs scored 14 points and Lauren Hansen added 13 points for the Wolverines (20-13) went just 12 for 38 on 2-point shots. Michigan made its first seven 3-pointers and after its first miss from deep midway through the second quarter already trailed 39-30.
The Hawkeyes ran up a 54-16 points-in-the-paint advantage, founded by all the layups they set up with their season-high-tying 30 assists, and hit five 3-pointers in the fourth quarter to finish it off and delight the Iowa-dominated sellout crowd that has flocked to see Clark and friends everywhere they play.
After missing 12 of 14 tries from deep in the 95-62 quarterfinal defeat of Penn State, when she still became the all-time NCAA leader in 3-pointers made, Clark downshifted her outside shooting a bit and let her inner point guard loose throughout the first half.
Whether with one-handed stretch passes bouncing across the court to hit her teammates in stride on the break or with a quick flick to feed a backdoor cut, Clark’s distribution game was in high gear.
She hit a 3-pointer early in the second quarter during a 9-0 run that gave the Hawkeyes the lead for good, then zipped a behind-the-back pass to Affolter for a 3-pointer off a break started by Martin’s steal on the next possession.
The sixth-seeded Wolverines likely secured their spot in the NCAA Tournament by beating third-seeded Indiana. ESPN’s projections pegged Michigan as one of the last four at-large teams to avoid the play-in games, but a headline win like this sure wouldn’t have hurt.
___
Get poll alerts and updates on AP Top 25 basketball throughout the season. Sign up here. AP women’s college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-womens-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/womens-college-basketball
Iowa
Iowa Great Lakes businessman Butch Parks dies at 81
SPIRIT LAKE, Iowa (KTIV) – The Iowa Great Lakes community is remembering Leo “Butch” Parks, a longtime lakes-area businessman and founder of Parks Marina.
He died Tuesday, Jan. 6, at the age of 81.
Parks established the marina on East Lake Okoboji in 1983, growing it from a small fishing boat operation into a business with marinas, sales, service, rentals, storage, and popular destinations like the Barefoot Bar.
Parks and his wife, Debbie, also owned Okoboji Boat Works for 23 years.
Funeral services are set for Friday, Jan. 16, at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Spirit Lake. It will be followed by a celebration of life at Snapper’s restaurant in Okoboji that evening.
Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.
Copyright 2026 KTIV. All rights reserved.
Iowa
Iowa woman accused of pandering for prostitution and harassment after incidents at Casey’s and a daycare
AURELIA, Iowa (KTIV) – A Northwest Iowa woman is facing charges of harassment and pandering for prostitution after two incidents took place in December 2025.
Forty-seven-year-old Kristal Miller of Odebolt was taken into custody on an arrest warrant and faces three charges: one count of pandering for prostitution and two counts of first-degree harassment, according to court documents.
The charges stem from two separate incidents that took place on Thursday, Dec. 18. 2025.
According to court documents, at 6:15 a.m., Miller reportedly went to the Casey’s General Store, located at 100 Pearl St. in Aurelia. Documents state Miller approached an employee and customers, requesting money from them.
Authorities state Miller claimed she was wanted by the FBI and told people, if anyone called the police, “she would kill them.”
During this encounter, she also allegedly asked an employee to remove the string from her hooded sweatshirt. Documents state when the employee refused this request, she threatened to strangle them.
That same day at 7 a.m., Miller reportedly approached a female employee outside an Aurelia daycare and asked them for money.
Court documents stated Miller suggested the unnamed employee leave her boyfriend. Miller reportedly told the employee, if she did, then she and Miller would both be paid.
Authorities say when she was told no by the employee, Miller became upset and started yelling at them.
Miller also allegedly threatened to “steal her car” and ”take her away to her guys to start a new life.”
She was booked into the Cherokee County Jail on a cash-only bond of $5,000. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled in Cherokee for Friday, Jan. 9, at 10 a.m.
Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.
Copyright 2026 KTIV. All rights reserved.
Iowa
Iowa law on police appeals ‘constitutionally vacuous,’ prosecutor says
The Iowa Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 docket is filled with key cases
Iowa’s top court has a busy schedule as it launches into a new term this fall, delving into cases involving subjects including bullying and TikTok.
A feud between two Jefferson County officials has landed before the Iowa Supreme Court, which must decide if a 2024 addition to Iowa’s Rights of Peace Officers law is unconstitutional.
Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey Moulding is asking the state’s high court to overturn what he calls the “constitutionally vacuous” law, which allows officers to petition the courts to be removed from their county’s Brady-Giglio list.
Named for two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the lists compiled by prosecutors identify law enforcement officers and others whose credibility is in question, and it can provide grounds for questioning their testimony in court.
After a dispute over a case involving a sheriff’s deputy’s use of force, Moulding in 2024 notified Jefferson County Sheriff Bart Richmond he was placing him on the Brady-Giglio list. Richmond petitioned a court to reverse Moulding’s decision, and a district judge did, finding Richmond’s actions in connection with the case, while unprofessional, did not bring his honesty or credibility into question.
In his appeal, Moulding argues that’s not up to the court to decide, and that the law lets judges improperly intrude on prosecutors’ professional judgment and, ultimately, defendants’ rights.
“The practical real application of (the 2024 law) is to create a Kafkaesque scenario where a criminal defendant could face the prospect of criminal charges involving a State witness who is so lacking in credibility that the State’s attorney has qualms about even calling him to testify, but is prevented from disclosure,” Moulding wrote. “Such a situation is unconscionable, and underlines the constitutional vacuousness of the statute itself.”
The court has not yet scheduled arguments for the case, which could have impacts far beyond Jefferson County. Attorney Charles Gribble, representing Richmond, said this is just one of three Iowa Brady-Giglio appeals he personally is involved in.
What is a Brady-Giglio list?
Under the Fifth Amendment, criminal defendants are entitled to due process of law. In Brady v. Maryland in 1963 and in subsequent cases the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process requires a prosecutor to disclose any known exculpatory evidence to the defense. That includes anything giving rise to doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, including law enforcement officers.
In 2022, Iowa formalized that process by mandating prosecuting agencies maintain a Brady-Giglio list of officers whose credibility can be questioned due to past dishonesty or other misconduct. The law requires agencies to notify officers when they are being put on a list and allows them to seek reconsideration.
Being placed on a list can damage or destroy an officer’s career, as prosecutors generally will decline to call them as witnesses or to bring charges that would depend on their testimony.
2024 law gives courts a role in Brady-Giglio lists
Iowa’s 2024 law went beyond requiring officers be notified of their placement on a Brady-Giglio list by giving them the right to appeal to a district court if their prosecuting agency refuses to take them off a list. The law requires judges to confidentially review evidence and allows them to affirm, modify or reverse an officer’s Brady-Giglio listing “as justice may require.”
In less than two years, courts have reversed local prosecutors on several Brady-Giglio placements, including a messy Henry County dispute in which prosecutors accused a sheriff’s deputy of making misleading statements on a search warrant application.
What happened in Jefferson County?
The lawsuit before the Iowa Supreme Court involves an April 2024 traffic stop by a Jefferson County deputy. As laid out in a subsequent memo by Moulding, video recordings show the deputy handling the driver roughly and, when the man complains, telling him “I can do whatever I want” and, “You’re not going to tell me what I can and can’t do. … You’re going to learn what respect is, young man.”
After learning about the incident, Moulding wrote, he repeatedly emailed Richmond, asking if the deputy’s actions had violated any county policies. Richmond did not respond. Concerned about possible litigation against the county, Moulding then asked another county to conduct an investigation. While the details are disputed, Moulding accuses Richmond of stonewalling both his office and the outside investigators and instructing his subordinates also not to cooperate.
“A county sheriff ordering deputies not to cooperate with an inquiry into a deputy’s use of force represents a fundamental lapse in judgment and raised serious concerns regarding the Sheriff’s honesty, candor and ethics as a law enforcement official,” Moulding wrote.
He scheduled a meeting that Richmond did not attend and then placed him on the county’s Brady-Giglio list. In an emailed statement, Moulding called the entire matter “unfortunate.”
“Frankly, I am shocked that instead of attempting to address this matter with my office cooperatively, the Sheriff instead decided to stonewall an investigation, stonewall the Brady-Giglio investigation, and then take this matter to court instead of sitting down and addressing the matter like an adult and an elected official,” he said.
In a letter, Moulding warned Richmond that he would no longer be called as a law enforcement witness and advised him to limit his involvement with criminal investigations, as “your engagement in such activities could likely negatively impact the outcomes in court.”
Judge disagrees with sheriff’s placement on list
After Moulding denied Richmond’s request for reconsideration, Richmond filed suit. In February 2025, Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled Richmond should be removed from the list.
Farrell’s order criticized both parties, finding that Moulding had failed to comply with some procedural elements of the law but that Richmond could have avoided the whole situation with “basic and professional” responses to Moulding’s emails. Nonetheless, he found Richmond’s actions did not demonstrate dishonesty or deceit that would justify placement on a Brady list.
“This is not a case in which an officer lied to a court, was convicted of a crime, manufactured or destroyed evidence, or committed some other act that would serve as the basis for impeachment in any criminal case,” Farrell wrote. “Game-playing the county attorney is not the standard of professionalism that Iowans expect of our elected county sheriffs,” he added, but does not constitute grounds for a Brady-Giglio listing.
Prosecutor appeals, argues law is unconstitutional
In his appeal, Moulding does not address Farrell’s factual findings, instead asking the court only to decide whether the law is constitutional.
“The most glaring constitutional defect in (the 2024 law) is that it impedes a criminal Defendant’s substantive and procedural due processes of law, and right to a fair trial,” the appeal says. “These fundamental rights constitute the bedrock raisons d’être for the entire body of Brady-Giglio jurisprudence in the first place.”
Iowa appears to be the only state with a law allowing officers to sue to be removed from a Brad-Giglio list, but Moulding cites a recent federal lawsuit where a judge rejected a South Dakota officer’s attempt to get removed from a list, finding the request “in essence, asks this Court to require a State’s Attorney to violate the constitution.” He further argues that the law violates the constitutional separation of powers and is “so poorly drafted as to be unenforceable and void for vagueness.”
Sheriff’s attorney says single lapse of judgment is not grounds for listing
Gribble, Richmond’s attorney, argued in his Supreme Court brief that the law is constitutional and that the sheriff’s actions fall well short of Brady-Giglio standards.
“Under (the 2024 law), placement on the Brady-Giglio list results not from a single lapse of judgment but rather from repeated, sustained, intentional and egregious acts over a period of time,” he wrote. “Thus, while a singular act of bad judgement may undermine a police officer’s credibility in a particular case, placement on the Brady-Giglio list places a permanent and unreviewable scarlet letter on the officer that he/she is unlikely to be able to ever overcome.”
He also suggests that a court order removing an officer from a list “does not in any way alter the prosecuting attorney’s duty to provide exculpatory evidence in all cases.” In an interview, he argued there should be a legal distinction between prosecutors disclosing concerns about an officer’s conduct in the case in which it occurred, and doing so in every future case involving them.
“To me, that’s what Brady-Giglio is for, not for occasional or first-time wrongs, even if established of a police officer, but those that have a history of that sort of thing,” he said.
The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the case.
William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios