February 15, 2026

PUBLIC ACCESS OPINION 25-014
(Request for Review 2025 PAC 88767)
Issued: December 3, 2025

In a recent binding opinion, the Illinois Attorney General determined that a police department could not charge a requester fees associated with redacting body-worn and dashboard camera footage maintained in electronic format. Public Access Opinion 25-014 (Request for Review 2025 PAC 88767), issued December 3, 2025, underscores the strict limitations on fees for electronic records under section 6(a) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/6(a) (West 2024)). This decision reinforces that public bodies may only charge for the actual cost of the recording medium when providing electronic copies, even when redactions are necessary, and serves as a reminder that fiscal burdens on public bodies do not justify shifting redaction costs to requesters.

Background

The opinion arose from a FOIA request submitted by Mr. Nicholas T. Diener to the Mattoon Police Department on August 13, 2025, seeking copies of body-worn camera footage and dashboard camera footage related to a July 1, 2025, incident in which he was involved. The Department responded on August 18, 2025, indicating that the responsive footage totaled approximately four to five hours and required redactions to exempt portions. The Department advised that redaction would be “costly” and required pre-payment, suggesting Mr. Diener narrow his request to reduce expenses.

Mr. Diener requested a detailed itemized estimate of fees, including breakdowns for labor, materials, and other costs, and expressed his intent to proceed with the original request pending review of the estimate. On August 20, 2025, the Department provided an estimate of $696.60, based on 4.5 hours (270 minutes) of video at a redaction rate of $2.58 per minute, citing section 6(b) of FOIA as authority. Mr. Diener contested the fee in a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor on August 21, 2025, arguing that redaction costs are non-chargeable under FOIA.

The Public Access Bureau requested the Department’s explanation on September 8, 2025. The Department responded on September 11, 2025, asserting that the fees reimbursed the “actual cost” of using Veritone redaction software, not personnel time, as required to comply with FOIA exemptions. The Bureau extended the review period on October 20, 2025, and issued the binding opinion on December 3, 2025.

AG Rules Redaction Fees Improper for Electronic Video Under IL FOIA

FOIA’s policy favors broad access to public records, mandating that public bodies operate openly and provide records “expediently and efficiently.” 5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2024). Courts liberally construe FOIA “in favor of ease of access to public records on the part of any interested citizen.” Sage Information Services v. Humm, 2012 IL App (5th) 110580, ¶ 19. Section 3(b) requires public bodies to provide copies of disclosable records subject to section 6’s fee provisions. 5 ILCS 140/3(b) (West 2024).

Section 6(a), governing electronic records, states: “When a person requests a copy of a record maintained in an electronic format, the public body shall furnish it in the electronic format specified by the requester, if feasible. * * * A public body may charge the requester for the actual cost of purchasing the recording medium, whether disc, diskette, tape, or other medium. * * * [A] public body may not charge the requester for the costs of any search for and review of the records or other personnel costs associated with reproducing the records.” 5 ILCS 140/6(a) (West 2024).

In contrast, section 6(b) permits fees “reasonably calculated to reimburse [the public body’s] actual cost for reproducing and certifying public records” for paper copies, with caps such as no fees for the first 50 black-and-white pages and 15 cents per page thereafter. 5 ILCS 140/6(b) (West 2024).

The Attorney General rejected the Department’s reliance on section 6(b), noting that the 2010 amendments to section 6 (Pub. Act 96-542, eff. Jan. 1, 2010) created a “clear distinction between fees for electronic records and fees for paper records.” Sage Information Services, 2012 IL App (5th) 110580, ¶¶ 15-18. Prior to the amendments, section 6(a) allowed fees for actual reproduction costs without differentiating formats. 5 ILCS 140/6(a) (West 2006). The revised structure limits electronic record fees to the medium’s cost, as “by its own terms, the current version of section 6 of the FOIA does not allow a fee in excess of the cost of the electronic medium for the reproduction of electronic records.” Sage Information Services, 2012 IL App (5th) 110580, ¶ 18.

The Department argued the fees covered software costs, not personnel, but the opinion clarified that such charges constitute an impermissible restraint on access. Substantial fees contravene FOIA’s intent, as “providing public records to citizens is a primary duty of public bodies * * * fiscal obligations notwithstanding.” Id. ¶ 19.

Moreover, FOIA anticipates redactions under section 7(1), which allows public bodies to redact exempt information and disclose the remainder, without authorizing fees for the process in electronic formats. 5 ILCS 140/7(1) (West 2024). If the General Assembly intended to permit redaction fees for electronic records, it would have done so explicitly in section 6(a). See Chapman v. Chicago Department of Finance, 2023 IL 128300, ¶ 29 (statutory provisions read to avoid rendering terms superfluous).

This aligns with prior interpretations limiting electronic record fees unless another statute expressly applies paper fees to electronic formats. Sage Information Services v. Suhr, 2014 IL App (2d) 130708, ¶¶ 14-17 (Property Tax Code fees not applicable to electronic records absent express language). FOIA explicitly recognizes fiscal burdens on public bodies for compliance, including staff and equipment, and directs interpretation to favor access despite technological advances. 5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2024).

Result

This opinion directs the Mattoon Police Department to provide the redacted footage to Mr. Diener, charging no more than the recording medium’s cost (e.g., a USB drive).

Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the Mattoon Police Department assessed an improper fee in response to Mr. Nicholas T. Diener’s August 13, 2025, Freedom of Information Act request. Accordingly, the Department is hereby directed to take immediate and appropriate action to comply with this opinion by providing Mr. Diener with a copy of the withheld video footage, subject to appropriate redactions, and assessing him a fee of no more than the actual cost of purchasing a recording medium.

Public bodies must absorb redaction expenses for electronic records, including software like Veritone, as part of their FOIA compliance obligations. Requesters facing similar fees should request itemized estimates and appeal to the Public Access Counselor if charges exceed the medium’s cost. For large video files, narrowing requests can still help manage response times, but cost-shifting for redactions remains prohibited.

This decision promotes transparency in law enforcement records, ensuring access to body camera footage without undue financial barriers, consistent with FOIA’s core policy.

The full PAC Opinion can be found here.

The post “AG Rules Redaction Fees Improper for Video Under IL FOIA” first appeared on FOIA.law on February 15, 2026.

Home: FOIA.law