AG Rules Redaction Fees Improper for Video Under IL FOIA

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

A Key 2025 Decision on FOIA Redactions and Grand Jury Subpoenas

January 25, 2026

Edgar County Watchdogs v. Paris Union School District No. 95, 2025 IL App (5th) 240811-U
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District
December 19, 2025

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act’s (IL FOIA) presumption of openness is a cornerstone of government transparency, but public bodies frequently invoke exemptions to withhold information.

A recent appellate court decision in Edgar County Watchdogs v. Paris Union School District No. 95, 2025 IL App (5th) 240811-U, provides important guidance on when redactions to federal grand jury subpoenas are permissible under IL FOIA—particularly regarding names of public employees and officials. This ruling underscores the limited scope of privacy and law enforcement exemptions, while affirming the rights of requesters to attorney fees as prevailing parties.

Background and Facts

In June 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice served a federal grand jury subpoena on Paris Union School District No. 95, demanding records related to a federal investigation. This followed an audit by the Illinois State Board of Education revealing questionable expenditures of federal grant funds in 2021 and 2022.

The Edgar County Watchdogs, a non-profit organization of investigative reporters focused on local government accountability, submitted a FOIA request for all subpoenas and search warrants received by the district in the prior 60 days. The district responded with a heavily redacted copy of the subpoena, citing IL FOIA exemptions under sections 7(1)(a) (information prohibited by federal or state law) and 7(1)(c) (unwarranted invasion of personal privacy). The district also referenced federal law, including Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and relied on letters from an Assistant U.S. Attorney advising against disclosure.

The Watchdogs sued, alleging willful violation of FOIA and seeking the unredacted subpoena, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The district moved to dismiss under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting the redactions were justified. The Watchdogs cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

After an in camera review, the circuit court found no initial FOIA violation but ordered a revised version with limited redactions (names of individuals and columns 3 and 5 in paragraph 19 of the subpoena). It granted the district’s motion to dismiss, denied summary judgment to the Watchdogs, and deemed the district the prevailing party.

Appellate Court Analysis and Holding

On appeal, the Fifth District Appellate Court reversed and remanded. Presiding Justice Cates, with Justices Barberis and Boie concurring, held that the circuit court erred in permitting blanket redactions of names without determining if they pertained to public employees or officials and their public duties.

Key points from the opinion:

• Privacy Exemption (Section 7(1)(c)): The court emphasized that IL FOIA explicitly states disclosure of information bearing on the public duties of public employees and officials is not an invasion of personal privacy. Relying on Better Government Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 386 Ill. App. 3d 808 (2008), the court noted that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not prohibit a public body recipient from disclosing a subpoena under IL FOIA. The appellate court remanded for an additional in camera review to identify if redacted names involved public employees/officials and related to their duties, ordering release if so.
• Law Enforcement Exemptions (Section 7(1)(d)(i) and (vii)): These apply only to records that would interfere with proceedings or obstruct investigations conducted by the recipient public body, which must be a law enforcement or correctional agency. The school district was neither, nor was it cooperating in the investigation—it was the subject. The court rejected the district’s reliance on Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth, 2019 IL App (1st) 170780, as factually distinguishable.
• Federal FOIA Exemptions: The court clarified that federal FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552) applies only to federal agencies, not state public bodies like the district. Letters from the Assistant U.S. Attorney citing federal exemptions were not controlling under IL FOIA.
• Prevailing Party and Attorney Fees: Under IL FOIA section 11(i), the Watchdogs prevailed because the court order compelled additional disclosure, even if partial. The appellate court reversed the prevailing party finding and remanded for the Watchdogs to petition for reasonable attorney fees and costs, citing Uptown People’s Law Center v. Department of Corrections, 2014 IL App (1st) 130161.

The court noted that issues regarding already-released information were moot but addressed the exemptions for the remaining redactions.

Determination and Implications

This decision reinforces IL FOIA’s strong presumption in favor of disclosure (5 ILCS 140/1.2), placing the burden on public bodies to prove exemptions by clear and convincing evidence. Public bodies cannot use federal grand jury secrecy as a shield to redact information unrelated to grand jury proceedings themselves. Importantly, names of public employees in documents tied to their official duties must be released, promoting accountability in cases involving potential misuse of public funds.

For requesters, the ruling highlights the value of challenging redactions through litigation, as even partial success can yield attorney fees. Public bodies should conduct thorough in camera reviews before invoking privacy exemptions and avoid overreliance on non-binding federal advice.

The full PAC Opinion can be found here.

Home: FOIA.law

PAC 25-016 Essential Guidance on Transparent FOIA Disclosures

January 19, 2026

PUBLIC ACCESS OPINION 25-016 (Request for Review 2025 PAC 89395)
Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
December 31, 2025

In a recent binding opinion issued by the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC), the Village of Thomasboro was found to have violated the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.) by improperly withholding a termination letter for its former Village Clerk. PAC Opinion 25-016, released on December 31, 2025, underscores the limits of exemptions under FOIA and the Personnel Record Review Act (PRRA, 820 ILCS 40/1 et seq.) when applied to records bearing on the public duties of government employees. This decision reaffirms the strong presumption of openness for records related to employee terminations, particularly for public officials like village clerks.

Background and Facts

On August 11, 2025, requester Tania Vucsko submitted a FOIA request to the Village seeking an unredacted copy of the termination letter issued by the Mayor to Village Clerk Tana Ward, dated August 7, 2025. The Village denied the request on August 18, 2025, citing section 7(1)(a) of FOIA in conjunction with the PRRA, the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act (820 ILCS 55/1 et seq.), and the Workplace Transparency Act (820 ILCS 96/1-1 et seq.), as well as sections 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(n) of FOIA.

Vucsko followed up with a similar request on August 19, 2025, expanding it to include supplemental documents related to Ward’s termination or separation. The Village again denied access on August 26, 2025, relying on the same grounds. Vucsko then filed Requests for Review with the PAC on September 21, 2025, challenging the denials.

The PAC consolidated its inquiry and, after reviewing the unredacted termination letter and the Village’s explanations, focused on the PRRA (via sections 7(1)(a) and 7.5(q) of FOIA), section 7(1)(c), and section 7(1)(n). The Village ultimately dropped its reliance on the other statutes, narrowing its defense to these exemptions.

The PAC’s Analysis

The PAC’s opinion methodically dismantled each asserted exemption, emphasizing FOIA’s core policy: “all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them” (5 ILCS 140/1). Records are presumed open, and the public body bears the burden of proving exemptions by clear and convincing evidence (5 ILCS 140/1.2).

• PRRA and Sections 7(1)(a) and 7.5(q) of FOIA

The Village argued that the PRRA prohibited disclosure of the termination letter to third parties without the employee’s consent or designation as a representative. It cited section 7(1) of the PRRA, which requires notice to employees before divulging disciplinary records, and sections 2 and 5, which govern employee access and representative inspections.

The PAC rejected this interpretation, noting that section 7(1) of the PRRA merely mandates notice—it does not require consent or prohibit disclosure. In fact, the PRRA explicitly allows employers to use this notice procedure for FOIA requests (820 ILCS 40/7(4)). Sections 2 and 5 pertain only to employee rights to review their own records and do not restrict third-party access under FOIA.

The PRRA prohibits disclosure in only two narrow circumstances: performance evaluations (section 11) and disciplinary records over four years old (section 8). The termination letter was neither—it was not a performance evaluation, and it was issued just days before the request. Citing Johnson v. Joliet Police Department, 2018 IL App (3d) 170726, the PAC confirmed that section 8 bars only outdated disciplinary records. Thus, no PRRA provision exempted the letter, rendering sections 7(1)(a) and 7.5(q) of FOIA inapplicable.

Research confirms no substantive changes to these PRRA provisions since 2016 that would alter this analysis. Recent amendments (effective January 1, 2025) expanded employee access rights, such as allowing more frequent reviews and broader document categories, but did not impose new restrictions on third-party disclosures under FOIA.

• Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA: Unwarranted Invasion of Personal Privacy

Section 7(1)(c) exempts personal information where disclosure would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” defined as information “highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person” where the subject’s privacy outweighs public interest. Critically, it excludes “information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials.”

The Village claimed Ward’s privacy in the termination reasons outweighed public interest. The PAC disagreed, finding the letter “directly and unequivocally bears on the public duties of the Village Clerk” and describes no private affairs.

• Section 7(1)(n) of FOIA: Adjudication Records

This exemption covers records “relating to a public body’s adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases,” but not the “final outcome” where discipline is imposed. “Adjudication” requires a “formalized legal process” resulting in an enforceable decision (Kalven v. City of Chicago, 2014 IL App (1st) 121846).

The Village asserted the letter related to an adjudication because it included reasoning beyond the mere outcome. However, it provided no evidence of a formal process—only an informal decision. Citing PAC Opinion 13-011 (June 11, 2013), the PAC held that without proof of adjudication, the exemption fails. The letter, as the final outcome, must be disclosed.

Determination and Implications

The PAC directed the Village to disclose the unredacted termination letter immediately. This opinion is binding and subject to administrative review under 5 ILCS 140/11.5.

The full PAC Opinion can be found here.

Home: FOIA.law

50 Free Pages Per Requester Says Illinois Appellate Court

November 19, 2025

Case Name: Walters v. McHenry County Sheriff’s Office
Body: Illinois Appellate Court (Second District)
Case Number: 2025 IL App (2d) 250071-U
Decision Date: November 18, 2025

In Walters v. McHenry County Sheriff’s Office, 2025 IL App (2d) 250071-U (filed November 18, 2025), the Illinois Appellate Court (Second District) unanimously affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a pro se FOIA lawsuit brought by Bradley Walters against the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office.

Walters mailed six separate FOIA requests on individual sheets of paper, all in the same envelope on August 9, 2024. Each request sought a different year’s Department of Corrections inspection report for the McHenry County jail (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2023, and 2024). The Sheriff’s Office treated the submissions as a single request from one requester, provided the first 50 pages free of charge, and demanded $0.15 per page for the remaining 113 pages.

Walters sued, contending that because he used “six separate peices [sic] of paper,” section 6(b) of the Illinois FOIA entitled him to 50 free pages for each of the six requests (300 free pages total). He sought production of the records, compensatory and punitive damages, and a $5,000 civil penalty for each allegedly unfulfilled request.

The circuit court granted the Sheriff’s Office’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss, reasoning orally that “[i]t was all in the same envelope. It’s the same request. … It was one request all made at the same time in the same envelope. They are allowed to charge for anything beyond 50 pages.”

On appeal, the Second District affirmed, but on narrower and more textually grounded grounds. Justice Birkett, writing for the panel, first rejected the Sheriff’s mootness argument. Although Walters had by then obtained the records from the Department of Corrections, the appellate court held that (1) the documents were not produced by the defendant agency itself (distinguishing Turner v. Joliet Police Department, 2019 IL App (3d) 170819), and (2) Walters’s claim for a civil penalty under 5 ILCS 140/11(j) remained live even if the request for production was moot. ¶¶ 14-16.

Turning to the merits, the court focused on the exact wording of section 6(b) of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/6(b) (West 2022)):

“No fees shall be charged for the first 50 pages of black and white, letter or legal sized copies requested by a requester. The fee for black and white, letter or legal sized copies shall not exceed 15 cents per page.”

The court emphasized the statute’s repeated use of the singular phrase “a requester”:

“[C]ontrary to plaintiff’s position, the statute does not provide that no fees shall be charged for the first 50 pages of each distinct request; rather, it provides that ‘[n]o fees shall be charged for the first 50 pages *** requested by a requester.’ … Thus, whether plaintiff’s requests were technically separate and distinct requests for different public records is of no consequence, because it is plaintiff’s status as a single requester that controls. Under the plain language of the statute, plaintiff—the ‘requester’—was entitled to ‘the first 50 pages *** requested’ from defendant—the ‘public body’—free of charge.” ¶ 19.

The appellate court therefore concluded that the Sheriff’s Office fully complied with the statute by providing 50 free pages and properly charging for the additional 113 pages. Walters failed to state a claim for any FOIA violation, rendering dismissal with prejudice appropriate.

Notably, the court did not reach the broader question—argued by the Sheriff’s Office and accepted by the trial judge—whether an agency may aggregate multiple requests submitted simultaneously in one envelope to prevent circumvention of the fee cap. Instead, the decision rests solely on the statutory text tying the 50-page waiver to “a requester,” not to each “request.”

The unpublished Rule 23 order (2025 IL App (2d) 250071-U) thus clarifies that, under the current Illinois FOIA, an individual requester receives only one 50-page free allowance per public body, regardless of how many separate pieces of paper or distinct records are sought in a single submission.

The full Illinois Appellate Court Opinion can be found here.

Home: FOIA.law

Unlocking Transparency in Public Access Opinion 25-001

February 11, 2025

Case Name: Public Access Opinion 25-001
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: Request for Review 2024 PAC 83751
Decision Date: February 11, 2025

Introduction

Unlocking Transparency in Public Access Opinion 25-001

Public Access Opinion 25-001, was decided by the Office of the Attorney General of Illinois, under case number 2024 PAC 83751, with the decision filed on February 11, 2025. The controversy arose when Mr. Derek Van Buer requested, on September 30, 2024, the Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb’s fiscal year 2024 and 2025 Excel budget workbooks, including links to supporting files.

The Authority extended its response deadline on October 7, 2024, and provided locked Excel files on October 15, 2024. Van Buer objected on October 16, 2024, citing restricted functionality due to password protection and hidden columns. On October 29, 2024, the Authority supplied updated locked files with visible columns, but still inaccessible for editing. Van Buer filed a Request for Review on November 1, 2024, alleging the locked files violated FOIA. The Authority defended its response on December 8, 2024, prompting this binding opinion.

Relevant FOIA Rules & Findings

The decision hinges on several FOIA statutes from the Illinois Compiled Statutes (5 ILCS 140/).

• Section 1 (5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2022)) establishes the public policy that “all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government,” emphasizing transparency.
• Section 1.2 (5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2022)) presumes all public records are open for inspection or copying absent an exemption, placing the burden on agencies to justify withholding.
• Section 3(a) (5 ILCS 140/3(a) (West 2022)) mandates that public bodies make records available for copying, except as provided in
• Section 7, which lists exemptions not invoked here.
• Section 3(e)(v) (5 ILCS 140/3(e)(v) (West 2022)) allows a five-business-day response extension, which the Authority utilized.
• Central to the dispute, Section 6(a) (5 ILCS 140/6(a) (West 2022)) 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.” If not feasible, the agency may provide it in its maintained format or paper, at the requester’s option. Feasibility is key, and no exemptions applied.
• Section 9.5(a) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) (West 2023 Supp.)) governs Requests for Review, requiring timely filing, which Van Buer met.
• Section 9.5(f) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2023 Supp.)) authorizes binding opinions and allows a 30-business-day extension, exercised here to February 14, 2025.
• Section 11.5 (5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2022)) permits judicial review within 35 days.

Analysis & Conclusion

Applying these rules, the Attorney General found the Authority’s response deficient.

Section 6(a) required providing Van Buer’s specified Excel format—interpreted via Fagel v. Department of Transportation (2013 IL App (1st) 121841) as an unlocked, functional file—unless infeasible. The Authority’s locked files, provided on October 15 and 29, 2024, restricted sorting, filtering, and formula access, akin to a PDF, not a fully usable Excel workbook.

The Authority argued it maintains locked files, distinguishing Fagel (where unlocked files existed), but Section 6(a)’s plain language prioritizes feasibility over maintenance format. The Authority neither pleaded infeasibility nor cited Section 7 exemptions, undermining its position. Fagel clarified that security concerns do not override FOIA absent statutory exemption, a precedent binding here. Van Buer’s timely Section 9.5(a) review request triggered this analysis, extended lawfully under Section 9.5(f).

The Attorney General, in unlocking transparency in Public Access Opinion 25-001, concluded on February 11, 2025, that the Authority violated FOIA by denying Van Buer unlocked Excel workbooks. It directed immediate compliance, providing a final, reviewable decision under Section 11.5. The matter affirmed FOIA’s transparency mandate, rejecting the Authority’s format-based defense.

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

Home: FOIA.law

Chicago Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability Violated FOIA

December 27, 2024

Case Name: Public Access Opinion 24-016
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: Request for Review 2024 PAC 83122
Decision Date: December 27, 2024

Introduction

The case revolves around a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by a requestor on September 5, 2024, seeking a copy of a letter sent by current and former Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) employees to the Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability (Commission). The letter urged the Commission to hold a no-confidence vote on COPA Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten.

The Commission denied the FOIA request on September 18, 2024, citing several FOIA exemptions, including: Section 7(1)(f) – Deliberative Process; Section 7(1)(m) – Attorney-Client Privilege/Internal Audit; Section 7(1)(n) – Employee Grievance Adjudication.

On September 19, 2024, requestor contested the denial by filing a Request for Review with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. After an investigation and legal review, the Attorney General issued a binding opinion on December 27, 2024, concluding that the Commission violated FOIA by improperly denying the request.

Relevant FOIA Rules & Findings

The opinion references multiple FOIA statutes and evaluates their applicability to the denied request. The relevant provisions analyzed include:

• Section 7(1)(c) – Personal Privacy Exemption: This section exempts personal information from disclosure if it constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Ruling: The letter does not contain highly personal information, and the public interest outweighs privacy concerns. Therefore, the Commission incorrectly applied this exemption.
• Section 7(1)(d)(iv) – Confidential Source Protection: Protects records that would disclose the identity of a confidential source or individuals providing information to administrative or investigative bodies. Ruling: The Commission is not a law enforcement agency, and the letter does not qualify as a law enforcement record. The exemption does not apply.
• Section 7(1)(d)(vi) – Physical Safety Risk: Exempts records if disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Ruling: The Commission failed to provide evidence that releasing the letter would pose a threat to anyone’s safety.
• Section 7(1)(f) – Deliberative Process Exemption: Exempts preliminary drafts, recommendations, or other records in which opinions are expressed as part of a decision-making process. Ruling: The letter was a third-party submission, not an internal agency deliberation. The exemption does not apply.
• Section 7(1)(m) – Attorney-Client Privilege/Internal Audit: Protects communications between a public body and its attorney or materials compiled for an audit. Ruling: The letter was not prepared for an audit and does not fall under attorney-client privilege. The exemption was improperly applied.
• Section 7(1)(n) – Employee Grievance Adjudication: Exempts records relating to a public body’s adjudication of employee grievances. Ruling: The letter was not part of a formal grievance process, so the exemption does not apply..

Conclusion

Chicago Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability Violated FOIA

The Attorney General ruled in favor of the requestor, concluding that the Commission violated FOIA by denying access to the letter. The Commission was ordered to release the requested document.

This decision reinforces transparency and accountability in government, emphasizing that FOIA exemptions must be applied narrowly and with clear justification. The public has a right to access records related to government affairs unless a strong legal basis for withholding them exists.

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

Home: FOIA.law

Elk Grove Village Police Directed To Provide Records

September 20, 2024

Case Name: Public Access Opinion 24-011
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: Request for Review 2024 PAC 82164
Decision Date: September 20, 2024

Introduction

The controversy arises from a FOIA request submitted by Mr. Michael Kielczewski to the Elk Grove Village Police Department on July 6, 2024, seeking a copy of Case/Incident Report EGP23-026823. This request included any associated records but excluded body camera footage. The Police Department denied the request on July 12, 2024, citing an exemption under Section 7(1)(d)(i) of FOIA, which protects records that could interfere with pending law enforcement investigations. Mr. Kielczewski sought these records to understand the reasons for his detention during a police investigation on December 18, 2023, when he was identified, searched, and later released. Following the denial, Mr. Kielczewski requested a review by the Public Access Counselor.

Relevant FOIA Rules

The relevant rules under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) emphasize that public records are presumed open for inspection unless exempted. Specific rules discussed include:

• Section 7(1)(d)(i): Exempts disclosure of law enforcement records if it interferes with ongoing or reasonably anticipated investigations. This requires the agency to prove such interference with clear evidence.
• Section 3(a): Mandates public bodies to disclose records unless exemptions apply, allowing partial disclosure with redactions where feasible.
• Section 7(1)(c): Protects personal privacy, allowing redactions of identifiable information like names or motives of uncharged suspects.
• Section 7(1)(b): Protects unique identifiers such as social security numbers and personal addresses from disclosure.
• Section 9(a): Requires public bodies to provide written notices of partial denials with justifications for any redactions.

Analysis and Findings

The Attorney General concluded that the Police Department’s rationale was insufficient. Conclusory claims of interference and references to unrelated investigations did not meet the clear and convincing standard required by FOIA. Applying the FOIA rules to the facts, the Attorney General’s Office found:

• The Police Department’s administrative closure of its investigation undermined its claim of interference.
• The cited exemption for ongoing multi-agency investigations lacked detailed justification or evidence of interference caused by disclosure.
• Privacy concerns under Section 7(1)(c) were addressed, suggesting redaction of personal details, such as suspect identities and witnesses, rather than withholding entire records.
• The Attorney General emphasized that FOIA favors transparency and public accountability, making the Police Department’s broad denial unjustifiable under the law.

Conclusion

Elk Grove Village Police Directed To Provide Records

The Attorney General directed the Elk Grove Village Police Department to release the requested records to Mr. Kielczewski, with permissible redactions for privacy under Sections 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(b). The decision reaffirmed FOIA’s purpose to ensure public access to records while balancing privacy and legitimate investigatory concerns.

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

Home: FOIA.law

Village of Lyons Faulted for FOIA Request Mishandling

June 28, 2024

Case Name: Public Access Opinion 24-009
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: Request for Review 2024 PAC 81336
Decision Date: June 28, 2024

Introduction

The controversy arose from a FOIA request submitted by Mr. Peter T. Sadelski, on behalf of Ed Fox & Associates, Ltd., to the Village of Lyons. The request, dated April 12, 2024, sought records concerning a named individual and any employee of the Village Police Department from January 1, 2010, to the date of the request.

The Village failed to respond to the FOIA request, leading Mr. Sadelski to file a Request for Review with the Public Access Counselor on May 9, 2024. Despite multiple follow-ups by the Public Access Bureau, the Village did not provide a response, prompting the issuance of this binding opinion.

Relevant FOIA Rules

The relevant FOIA rules applicable to the issue discussed in the document are derived from the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140), they include:

• Section 1.2 (Presumption): All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open for inspection or copying. The burden of proof lies with the public body to show that a record is exempt from disclosure 5 ILCS 140/1.2.
• Section 3(a) (Inspection and Copying of Records): Public bodies must make all public records available for inspection or copying, except as otherwise provided in Sections 7 and 8.5 5 ILCS 140/3(a).
• Section 3(d) (Response Time): Public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within 5 business days, either by complying, denying, or extending the time for response under certain conditions. Failure to respond within the prescribed time is considered a denial 5 ILCS 140/3(d).
• Section 3(e) (Extensions): Allows for a single extension of up to 5 business days under specific conditions, such as the need to locate records, the volume of records requested, or the need for consultation 5 ILCS 140/3(e).
• Section 9(a) (Denial Notice): If a request is denied, the public body must provide a written notice stating the reasons for the denial, the exemption claimed, and the right to review by the Public Access Counselor 5 ILCS 140/9(a).
• Section 11 (Judicial Review): Individuals denied access to records may file suit for injunctive or declaratory relief in circuit court 5 ILCS 140/11.

Analysis and Findings

The FOIA rules were applied to assess the actions of the defendants as follows:

• Presumption of Openness: The records requested by Mr. Sadelski are presumed open to inspection and copying under Section 1.2.
• Failure to Respond: The Village’s failure to respond to the FOIA request within the 5 business days, as required by Section 3(d), constitutes a violation of FOIA.
• No Extension: The Village did not seek a permissible extension under Section 3(e), nor did they reach a written agreement with Mr. Sadelski for an extended response time.
• Violation and Remediation: Under Section 9(a), the Village’s failure to provide a written denial with the necessary details further violated FOIA. The Public Access Counselor’s office attempted multiple times to get a response from the Village, but the Village did not comply.

Conclusion

The Attorney General concluded that the Village of Lyons violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by not responding to Mr. Sadelski’s request within the statutory period. The Village was directed to immediately comply by providing the requested records or issuing a proper denial with permissible redactions under Section 7. This opinion is considered a final decision of an administrative agency for the purposes of administrative review. The Village is precluded from treating the request as unduly burdensome or imposing copying fees due to their non-compliance with the statutory requirements.

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

Home: FOIA.law

Chicago Housing Authority Improperly Redacts FOIA Request Details

June 21, 2024

Case Name: Request for Review 2024 PAC 81170
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: 2024 PAC 81170
Decision Date: June 21, 2024

Introduction

The controversy arises from a FOIA request submitted by Ms. Sasha Mothershead on behalf of the HOPE Fair Housing Center to the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) on March 15, 2024.

The request sought an Excel file containing information on each CHA Scattered Site property, including “Unit Address” and “Unit Status.” CHA responded by partially denying the request, redacting most of the street addresses citing section 7(1)(v) of FOIA. Ms. Mothershead contested this redaction, leading to this review.

Relevant dates include March 15, 2024 (initial request), March 29, 2024 (extension by CHA), April 5, 2024 (response with redactions), April 15, 2024 (request for reconsideration), and April 24, 2024 (submission of Request for Review)

Relevant FOIA Rules

The specific FOIA rules which are relevant to this case include:

• Section 3(e)(vi): Allows for an extension of the response time by five business days under certain circumstances, which CHA invoked on March 22, 2024. 5 ILCS 140, Section 3(e)(vi).
• Section 7(1)(v): Exempts from disclosure records related to vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans if their disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize their effectiveness or safety. CHA cited this exemption to justify redacting the street addresses. 5 ILCS 140, Section 7(1)(v).
• Section 9(b): Requires that when a request for public records is denied, the denial notice must specify the exemption claimed and provide a detailed factual basis for the denial. CHA’s initial response failed to provide a detailed factual basis for its redactions. 5 ILCS 140, Section 9(b).

Analysis and Findings

The FOIA rules were applied to assess the actions of the defendants as follows:

• Applying the FOIA rules to the facts, the Attorney General’s office found that CHA improperly redacted the street addresses.
• CHA argued that the redaction was a security measure to prevent illegal activities such as squatting. However, the addresses themselves do not constitute vulnerability assessments, security measures, or response plans as defined by section 7(1)(v) of FOIA.
• Thus, the redactions did not meet the threshold requirement under this section.
• Previous cases cited by CHA, including Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Transit Authority and Lucy Parsons Labs v. City of Chicago, were distinguished as they involved records that directly depicted security measures, which the street addresses did not

Conclusion

The Attorney General concluded that CHA violated FOIA by improperly redacting the street addresses. CHA was directed to provide Ms. Mothershead and the HOPE Fair Housing Center with the full street addresses of the vacant units. The decision is considered a final decision of an administrative agency and may be subject to judicial review

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

Home: FOIA.law

Harsy v Perry County Sheriff: FOIA Complaint Dismissal Upheld

June 3, 2024

Case Name: Nathanael Harsy v. Perry County Sheriff’s Office
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District
Case Number: 5-18-0483
Decision Date: June 3, 2024

Introduction

Nathanael Harsy filed a complaint under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Perry County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO). Harsy sought various documents and records, explanations for redacted and missing pages, and reimbursement for copying fees. The PCSO provided documents but with redactions and missing information, leading to Harsy’s legal challenge. The trial court dismissed Harsy’s complaint, and Harsy appealed the decision. Harsy v. Perry, pages 1-2.

Relevant FOIA Rules

The specific FOIA rules which are relevant to this case include:

• Public Body Definition: FOIA applies to legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the State, but excludes the judiciary. 5 ILCS 140/2(a).
• Response Time: Public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within five business days, with possible extensions if additional efforts are required to locate records. 5 ILCS 140/3(d).
• Exemptions: Certain records are exempt from disclosure under FOIA, such as:
  • Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and other records where opinions are expressed or policies are formulated. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f).
  • Trade secrets and commercial or financial information where disclosure would cause competitive harm. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(g).
  • Law enforcement records that could interfere with proceedings or invade personal privacy. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d).
• Unduly Burdensome Requests: Public bodies can reject requests that are unduly burdensome if compliance would be overly taxing and the burden outweighs the public interest in the information. The public body must give the requester an opportunity to narrow the request and provide a written explanation if the request is deemed unduly burdensome. 5 ILCS 140/3(g).

Analysis and Findings

The FOIA rules were applied to assess the actions of the defendants as follows:

• Initial Requests: Harsy requested transcripts of conversations between PCSO police officers and dispatch on several dates. PCSO provided redacted documents and charged fees for the records, which Harsy disputed. Harsy argued that the response was not timely and that explanations for redactions were inadequate. Harsy v. Perry, pages 2-4.
• Exemptions and Charges: The PCSO cited various exemptions for redactions and charged Harsy for copying fees, which exceeded the maximum allowable amount per page under FOIA. Harsy v. Perry, pages 4-6. The court found that the PCSO’s redactions and fee calculations, while initially flawed, were corrected, and proper refunds were issued.
• Mootness: The court found Harsy’s claims moot since the PCSO provided all requested documents and issued refunds, negating the need for further legal action. Harsy v. Perry, pages 16-18.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Harsy’s complaint. The court concluded that the PCSO did not willfully or intentionally violate FOIA and adequately addressed the issues raised by Harsy by providing the requested documents and issuing necessary refunds. Harsy’s claims were deemed moot, and no further relief was granted. Harsy v. Perry, pages 23-24.

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

Home: FOIA.law