Appellate Court Addresses Prisoner FOIA Use
Last week, an Illinois appellate court upheld a circuit court's ruling that an inmate was not entitled to home addresses of other individuals under FOIA in an unpublished opinion.
In Serio v. Putnam Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept.,
Raymond Serio, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, sent two
FOIA requests to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department seeking specific
information regarding individuals that had been booked into custody at the
Putnam County jail. He asked for the name, age, full address, offense, date of arrest, and photos of each individual
under Section 2.15(a) of FOIA. The Sheriff’s Department subsequently
provided Serio the records he requested in part in response to both FOIA
requests, but withheld the home addresses under Section 7(1)(b), which protects home addresses from release as "private information."
Serio sued, arguing that the Sheriff’s Department (1) willfully and intentionally
failed to comply with his FOIA requests, (2) should be ordered to release the
home addresses, and (3) should pay civil penalties and Serio’s costs of filing
the lawsuit. The Sheriff’s Department reasserted its use of the "private information" exemption to bar disclosure of the addresses. The trial court ruled in favor of the
Sheriff’s Department and denied Serio’s claim for relief. Serio appealed.
On appeal, Serio argued that the
plain language of FOIA expressly provided for obtaining that information if it is included in arrest reports. This time, the Sheriff’s Department argued that Section 7(1)(e-10) of FOIA barred
the disclosure. At the time of the trial court’s ruling, the exemption in Section 7(1)(e-10)
had not yet been enacted. This section exempts from FOIA the following:
(e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested
by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human
Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not
limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs,
except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential
case or claim.
The appellate court determined
that the Sheriff’s Department’s use of this exemption was proper and that
it could withhold the home addresses. The court reasoned that although Section 7(1)(e-10)
became effective after the trial court ruling, it applied retroactively as the
legislature did not expressly state otherwise, and because it was a procedural
change to FOIA rather than a substantive change that would preclude Serio from
exercising his rights under the statute. Finally, Serio failed to explain in
both his complaint and FOIA requests how the information he requested was
relevant to “his current or potential case or claim” as required by Section
7(1)(e-10).
Post Authored by Ashton Tunk & Julie Tappendorf
0 comments:
Post a Comment