Recent Court Decisions

The Chicago Police Department (Department) violated FOIA by improperly denying a request for a copy of one of the Department’s work schedule calendars.

On January 28, 2019, the Petitioner (an individual) requested a copy of “2019 Extradition Calendar Unit 166 – January 2019” – a work schedule for employees in the Department’s extradition section. On February 11, 2019, the Department denied the request, stating that “extradition monthly calendars contain recommendations regarding assignments and are not an official CPD document” and so it was being withheld as predecisional or draft material under FOIA Section 7(1)(f). The Petitioner then submitted a Request for Review to the PAC.

The PAC reviewed Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA, which exempts from disclosure “preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated.” The PAC noted that while this exemption is intended to protect the communications process and encourage frank and open discussion among agency employees before a final decision is made, it does not exempt purely factual material from disclosure unless the factual material is inextricably intertwined with predecisional and deliberative communications. The Department asserted that the extradition calendar is predecisional because it is constantly updated and entries frequently change. It also asserted the calendar is deliberative because it forms the basis for a final decision by the sergeant. After reviewing the extradition calendar itself, the PAC found that even if the calendar is subject to revision and is used to make final decisions, the calendar does not provide insight into the Department’s deliberative process or inhibit candid communications concerning the formulation of any policy. Plus, the PAC added, the January 2019 calendar would have been finalized by the time the Department needed to respond to the FOIA request. As a result, the PAC ordered the Department to disclose the extradition calendar to the Petitioner.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Chicago Police Department (Department) violated FOIA by improperly denying a request for a copy of one of the Department’s work schedule calendars.

On January 28, 2019, the Petitioner (an individual) requested a copy of “2019 Extradition Calendar Unit 166 – January 2019” – a work schedule for employees in the Department’s extradition section. On February 11, 2019, the Department denied the request, stating that “extradition monthly calendars contain recommendations regarding assignments and are not an official CPD document” and so it was being withheld as predecisional or draft material under FOIA Section 7(1)(f). The Petitioner then submitted a Request for Review to the PAC.

The PAC reviewed Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA, which exempts from disclosure “preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated.” The PAC noted that while this exemption is intended to protect the communications process and encourage frank and open discussion among agency employees before a final decision is made, it does not exempt purely factual material from disclosure unless the factual material is inextricably intertwined with predecisional and deliberative communications. The Department asserted that the extradition calendar is predecisional because it is constantly updated and entries frequently change. It also asserted the calendar is deliberative because it forms the basis for a final decision by the sergeant. After reviewing the extradition calendar itself, the PAC found that even if the calendar is subject to revision and is used to make final decisions, the calendar does not provide insight into the Department’s deliberative process or inhibit candid communications concerning the formulation of any policy. Plus, the PAC added, the January 2019 calendar would have been finalized by the time the Department needed to respond to the FOIA request. As a result, the PAC ordered the Department to disclose the extradition calendar to the Petitioner.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

A school board (Board) violated the public recital requirement in Section 2.06(e) of OMA during its January 28, 2019 meeting, when it failed to identify a teacher by name before issuing the teacher a disciplinary action called a notice to remedy. Section 2(e) of OMA requires a public body to make a “public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted” before it takes final action on the matter. 5 ILCS 120/2(e). In the case of Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General, 77 N.E.3d 625 (Ill. 2017), the Illinois Supreme Court, in interpreting the meaning of Section 2(e), held that “the recital must announce the nature of the matter under consideration, with sufficient detail to identify the particular transaction or issue, but need not provide an explanation of its terms or its significance.” Relying on the interpretation from the Springfield case, the Public Access Counselor (PAC) found that the board’s mere public recital of the title of the resolution authorizing the notice to remedy, without identifying the teacher that was the subject of the discipline, did not give enough information to identify the particular transaction. As a result, the PAC ordered the Board to re-vote on the notice to remedy resolution and before voting, to provide a public recital of the matter that included reciting the teacher’s name. This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Village of Ringwood (Village) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On October 30, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request for records concerning public meetings of the Village Board of Trustees from April 2016 through October 2018. Receiving no response by November 8, 2018, the Requestor contacted the PAC. The PAC sent two letters to the Village but received no response. The PAC then left a voicemail message for the Village Clerk, but again received no response. As of February 19, 2019, the Village had not responded to the PAC.

The PAC held that the Village violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing, within five business days after receiving the October 30, 2018 FOIA request, to provide the requested records, extend the time for its response pursuant to Section 3(e) of FOIA, or deny the request in whole or in part. The PAC ordered the Village to provide the Requestor with all records responsive to her FOIA request.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Chicago Police Department (Department) violated FOIA by refusing to disclose copies of officer-worn body camera recordings related to a motor vehicle accident. On September 18, 2018, the Petitioner (a law firm) requested, among other items, copies of “any and all” body camera recordings from a particular police officer related to an identified traffic report number. The Department denied this portion of Petitioner’s FOIA request under FOIA Section 7(1)(a), which exempts from disclosure information that is specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law. The specific State law that the Department asserted applied was the Law Enforcement Officer-World Body Camera Act (Body Camera Act). The Body Camera Act generally prohibits the disclosure of body camera recordings under FOIA, except as set forth in Section 10-20(b).

The PAC reviewed Section 10-20(b)(3) of the Body Camera Act, which states that “upon request, the law enforcement agency shall disclose, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the recording to the subject of the encounter captured on the recording or to the subject’s attorney, or the officer or his or her legal representative.” When the PAC asked the Department to explain how Section 10-20(b)(3) of the Body Camera Act applied, the Department did not respond. Instead, the Department argued that a body camera recording is not subject to disclosure under FOIA unless it is flagged in accordance with either Section 10-20(b)(1) or (b)(2) of the Body Camera Act. The PAC reviewed the legislative intent of the Body Camera Act and found that even though a recording must be “flagged” under Section 10-20(b)(1) or (b)(2), no flagging is required under Section 10-20(b)(3). As a result, the PAC ordered the Department to disclose the body camera recordings to the Petitioner.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.