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