May 7, 2024

Case Name: Robin W. Hickman v. Dora J. Mann
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District
Case Number: 5-23-0247
Decision Date: May 7, 2024

Introduction

The plaintiff, Robin W. Hickman, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Dora J. Mann, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking a declaratory judgment, an order for the release of certain documents, and civil penalties. Hickman’s FOIA requests were aimed at obtaining specific documents from the Bond County Sheriff’s Office and the Bond County State’s Attorney’s Office. The central issue was whether the requested documents existed and whether there were procedural errors in handling the FOIA requests. The court ultimately dismissed Hickman’s complaint, prompting his appeal. The relevant dates include December 19, 2021 (initial FOIA request), January 9, 2022 (subsequent request), and multiple court actions throughout 2022 and 2023.

Relevant FOIA Rules

FOIA (5 ILCS 140) mandates that public bodies make public records available for inspection or copying. Key sections relevant to this case include:

• Section 3(a): Requires public bodies to make available all public records for inspection or copying.
• Section 11(a): Allows any person denied access to public records to file suit for injunctive or declaratory relief, with the court reviewing de novo.
• Section 11(j): Mandates civil penalties for public bodies that willfully and intentionally fail to comply with FOIA, ranging from $2,500 to $5,000 per occurrence.
• Section 3.5(a): Requires public bodies to designate FOIA officers to handle requests, and these officers or their designees must ensure timely responses.

These rules are designed to ensure transparency and accountability of public bodies by making governmental records accessible to the public.

Hickman’s requests were evaluated against these FOIA requirements. Despite his insistence that certain documents should exist, the defendant’s responses, supported by affidavits, indicated no such records were maintained. The court found no procedural errors that would warrant overturning the dismissal of Hickman’s complaint.

Analysis and Findings

Applying the FOIA rules to Hickman’s case, the court assessed whether the Bond County Sheriff’s Office and State’s Attorney’s Office had violated their obligations under FOIA. The analysis focused on:

• Existence of Records: The court found that the requested documents did not exist in the Sheriff’s Office or State’s Attorney’s Office. The defendant provided all documents available from the county treasurer in response to financial records requests.
• Procedural Compliance: The court determined that procedural compliance was met by the designated FOIA officers and their designees, as allowed by FOIA.
• Misnomer and Designation: The court addressed the issue of misnomer, recognizing that the lawsuit’s target should have been the public bodies rather than the individual FOIA officer. Despite this, the defendant appropriately represented the public bodies involved.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the Bond County Sheriff’s Office and State’s Attorney’s Office had complied with FOIA requirements. The dismissal of Hickman’s complaint was affirmed, as the requested documents did not exist, and there were no procedural violations that justified reversal. Hickman’s appeal was thus denied, and the original judgment in favor of the defendant was upheld.

For a detailed review, you can access the full document here.

Home: FOIA.law