Recent Court Decisions

A Peoria Journal Star reporter issued a FOIA to the City of Peoria for reports authored by a particular Peoria Police Department officer, but the City refused to disclose one of two responsive reports, asserting said report was exempt under Section 7(1)(n) because it was “a report of an employee grievance and served as the factual basis which initiated two internal disciplinary cases against two officers of the Peoria Police Department.” Upholding lower decisions by the Public Access Counselor and the trial court, the appellate court held that the report was not exempt under Section 7(1)(n) because the report “was created well before any adjudication took place and existed independent of any adjudication. That the report later led to disciplinary action against two officers is insufficient to make it exempt under FOIA.”

An individual submitted a FOIA request to the Chicago Police Department (CPD) for various First Amendment-related worksheets and for communications issued by the Crime Prevention Information Center generated from August 2014 through October 2014. CPD did not respond to the FOIA request within 5 business days, extend its time for a response under Section 3(e), or deny the request in writing. CPD then repeatedly failed to respond to subsequent requests by the Public Access Bureau that it respond to the FOIA request. The PAC ordered CPD to immediately provide all records responsive to the FOIA requester, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7 of FOIA. The bottom line here is that public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within the time permitted per statute.

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

An individual submitted a FOIA request to the Illinois State Police (ISP) for records pertaining to the death of his daughter, including all crime scene and autopsy photographs. ISP responded by providing certain information but withholding the crime scene and autopsy photographs as personal information which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Section 7(1)(c). The PAC found that 7(1)(c) did not apply here because an individual’s personal privacy interest ceases to exist upon death. Further, the PAC held that a decedent’s surviving family members possess a separate personal privacy interest in their close relative’s death-scene images, that such individuals may consent to the disclosure of information in which he or she has a personal privacy interest, and that ISP did not articulate a legal rationale justifying withholding the photographs from the decedent’s father, who was also executor of her estate.

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

For the second time this calendar year, the PAC has told public bodies they must respond to FOIA requests. Following receipt of a FOIA request, a school district properly responded within 5 business days to extend its timeline for a response by an additional 5 business days pursuant to FOIA Section 3(e). Thereafter, however, the school district failed to respond to the FOIA request within the time permitted for the extension, and then repeatedly failed to respond to subsequent requests by the Public Access Bureau that it respond to the FOIA request. The PAC ordered the school district to immediately provide all records responsive to the FOIA requester, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7 of FOIA. The bottom line here is that public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within the time permitted per statute.

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

Originally issued Dec. 15, 2015, the court issued a corrected opinion. During a public meeting, the board voted to terminate employment of its superintendent. The superintendent and the board reached agreement as to terms of separation, and he signed a 19-page “separation agreement and release.” The board appropriately considered the superintendent's dismissal and signed the agreement during closed session one month prior to its vote in open session as permitted by section 2(c)(1) of Open Meetings Act.

The Alliance filed an Amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the Springfield School District 186 Board of Education.