Court Finds No FOIA Violation

Court Finds No FOIA Violation

  Tuesday, November 26, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

An inmate submitted an “inmate request/grievance form” to a county sheriff’s office (Sheriff), stating that the inmate was “requesting to talk with: FOIA/Legal/Dietary,” regarding a “Request for Preservation.” The inmate attached a list seeking nutritional information for food served at the jail. In response, the Sheriff disclosed several records responsive to the request within the Sheriff’s possession or custody. 

In January 2024, the inmate filed a lawsuit claiming the Sheriff violated FOIA by failing to comply with his request. The circuit court dismissed the case finding that (1) the inmate request did not seek “public records” as defined by FOIA but instead asked the Sheriff to preserve items and prepare data, which was improper under FOIA, (2) the Sheriff did not deny the inmate’s FOIA request because it disclosed all responsive records in its possession, (3) disclosing records did not waive the Sheriff’s argument there was never a valid FOIA request, and (4) even if the Sheriff’s response was untimely, there was no relief the court could provide and there was no willful or intentional lack of compliance by the Sheriff.

After the inmate appealed, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the case in McBroom v. Logan County Sheriff’s Office.

First, the Appellate Court held that portions of the inmate's request did constitute a valid FOIA request where (1) the inmate directed his request to “FOIA,” (2) the request sought specific documents allegedly maintained by the Sheriff, and (3) the Sheriff interpreted the request as a FOIA request and forwarded the request to the Sheriff’s FOIA officer. 

Second, to the extent the inmate's request asked for general information/data, answers to questions, or requesting the Sheriff to create new records, those requests were outside of FOIA and the Court held that the Sheriff was not required to comply with those requests.

Third, the Court found that the inmate failed to provide a counter affidavit or other evidence to counter the FOIA officer’s affidavit that the office had provided all responsive records.

Fourth, the Court rejected the inmate's argument that the Sheriff failed to timely respond to his request, finding that the Sheriff received the request on February 1, 2023, and responded to the request on February 7, 2023, within the five business day FOIA time-frame. The Court noted that even if the Sheriff’s response was untimely, once the Sheriff disclosed its responsive records to the request, the inmate’s claim for records already disclosed was moot.

Finally, the Court held that the Sheriff did not willfully or intentionally fail to comply with FOIA so the inmate was not entitled to civil penalties or attorneys' fees.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Road Impact Fees as Condition to Annexation

Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Road Impact Fees as Condition to Annexation

  Monday, November 25, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

Last year, we reported on an Illinois Appellate Court decision that upheld the validity of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between a county and municipalities that provided for the imposition of road impact fees on developers as a condition to annexation. That ruling was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court which issued a decision upholding the Appellate Court's ruling in Habdab v. County of Lake, et al.

In 2009, Mundelein (Village), Lake County (County), and two other municipalities entered an IGA to provide for construction funding for highway improvements that would serve each municipality. The IGA required that half of the costs of the improvements be paid by the public and the other half be paid by impact fees on future developers who build near the improvements. The fee amounts were calculated depending on the size and location of each parcel. The IGA required the municipalities to require that developers proposing to annex property into the municipality to enter into annexation agreements that would include provisions stating that a developer’s plans would not receive final zoning approvals until the required impact fees were collected.

A developer filed a lawsuit against Mundelein and the County when they tried to collect the road impact fees. The developer argued that the fees constituted road improvement impact fees that do not comply with the Impact Fee Law and that the fees were "unconstitutional conditions." Both the circuit court and Appellate Court rejected the developer's arguments and ruled in favor of the Village and County.

On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Court that the road impact fees imposed through the IGA did not constitute "road improvement impact fees" under the Impact Fee Law. The Court distinguished between the IGA imposed fees (which are a condition to annexation) and the Impact Fee Law's "road improvement impact fees" (which are imposed as a condition to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy). In addition, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that the annexation agreement statute expressly authorizes municipalites to require contributions of either land or monies as a condition of annexation. 

Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the developer's argument that the fees imposed through the IGA constituted "unconstitutional conditions," agreeing with the Appellate Court's finding that there was an essential nexus between the condition (impact fees) and a legitimaate state interest (preventing congestion and providing road improvements to ease it) and that a rough proportionality existed between the burden on the developer and the harm the government sought to remedy through the imposition of the fees.

 

Read More

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Code Enforcement Agreement in Favor of Village

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Code Enforcement Agreement in Favor of Village

  Tuesday, November 19, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a court order awarding a Village $45,000 in fines against a company that failed to timely install a fire alarm system in breach of a compliance agreement. Village of Plainfield v. Ionia Real Properties, LLC

In 2017, a real estate company purchased a vacant building within the Village. For the following year, the company repeatedly failed fire safety inspections for failure to install a proper fire alarm system. In 2018, the company and the Village entered into an agreement to resolve the issue. The compliance agreement required the company to install a fire alarm system within 60 days. It also provided that a $500 per day fine would be assessed if the company failed to install the system. 

When the fires system was not installed in the time period required by the compliance agreement, the Village filed a lawsuit against the company, asking the court to impose the fine for the company’s late compliance. Initially, the court ruled against the Village but in response to the Village's motion to reconsider, ultimately ruled ruled in favor of the Village and awarded it $45,000 in fines pursuant to the compliance agreement.

On appeal, the company argued the circuit court erred when it:

(1) ruled in favor of the Village;

(2) denied the company’s motion to disqualify the Village’s attorney;

(3) granted the Village’s motion to stop the company’s subpoenas for witnesses; and

(4) entered a $45,000 judgment against the company.

The Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's ruling in favor of the Village, finding that the delay on installing the fire alarm system was due solely to the company’s failure to sign a price quote with the installation company until four days prior to the agreement’s 60-day deadline, which led to the late work and resulted in a material breach of the compliance agreement. The Appellate Court also rejected the company's argument that the Village attorney should have been disqualified or that the subpoenas were necessary. Finally, the Appellate Court noted that the compliance agreement clearly stated the company would be fined $500 per day if it failed to install the fire alarm system by the agreement's deadline, which amounted to a $45,000 penalty. 

Post Authored by Daniel Lev & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Rejects Due Process Claims in Nuisance Case

Appellate Court Rejects Due Process Claims in Nuisance Case

  Thursday, November 14, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

The City of Chicago filed a lawsuit against the unknown heirs of the deceased owner of a single-family home claiming the property had been neglected and was an unsafe public nuisance. In City of Chicago v. Dzendrowski, an Illinois Appellate Court rejected claims by family members of the deceased owner that they were denied due process because they were not properly notified of the City's lawsuit.

After the City discovered numerous violations of the City Code including warped flooring, missing electrical and plumbing fixtures, and damage to the home’s exterior from decaying trees, it searched the property’s title records to attempt to locate the heirs of the deceased owner. The City found eight possible relatives, including the two individuals involved in this lawsuit, and for over a year, the City made numerous unsuccessful attempts to serve the individuals. Eventually, it sought permission from the court to serve notice in a newspaper.  

At the first court hearing on the City's lawsuit, the court appointed a limited receiver to take all reasonable steps to remove the nuisances. After the hearing, two relatives of the deceased owner filed motions and argued they were not properly notified of the lawsuit. The circuit court denied the motions, allowed the limited receiver to remedy the issues with the property, and the City voluntarily dismissed the case. 

The two relatives appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing, among other things, that their procedural due process rights were violated when the City voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the court denied the relative's motions but before they could file a counterclaim or otherwise defend against the merits of the lawsuit. The court rejected their claims, holding that the relatives had a 10-12 month period where they could have asserted a counterclaim or defense, but chose not to do so. The court said this was a reasonable time to defend against the allegations and held that their due process rights were not violated by the court's dismissal of the case.  

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Administrative Decision Reversed and Remanded Due to Lack of Factual Findings to Support Decision

Administrative Decision Reversed and Remanded Due to Lack of Factual Findings to Support Decision

  Wednesday, November 13, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Bond County Community United School District 2 (District) voted to close one of its public schools and transfer its 107 students to other schools. In response to the school closing, the "Sorento Parents Committee of Ten" (Parents Committee) filed a petition with the Regional Board of School Trustees for Bond, Christian, Effingham, Fayette, and Montgomery Counties (RBST) proposing to detach the school from the District and attach its property to the Mount Olive Community Unit School District.

The RBST held a hearing on the detachment petition, and heard evidence presented by the Parents Committee, before issuing an administrative order to deny the petition. The RBST determined that the Parents Committee failed to establish that the students would receive significant direct educational benefits from switching school districts. The Parents Committee appealed the denial of its petition to the circuit court which upheld the decision of the RBST. The Parents Committee then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which reversed and remanded the case back to the RBST in Sorento Parents Committee of Ten v. Regional Board of School Trustees for Bond.

The Appellate Court first reviewed the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, which requires administrative agencies to include findings of fact and conclusions of law in their final decisions. Because the RBST ’s administrative order did not contain any factual findings or legal conclusions, the Appellate Court held that there was no basis for a reviewing court to review the decision for error. As a result of the Board’s failure to meet these requirements in issuing its final decision, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and vacated the decision of the RBST. The case was remanded back to the RBST for further review, evaluation, and decision.

Post Authored by Madeline Tankersley and Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Seventh Circuit Upholds Use of Pole Camera by Police to Record Activities at Front of Home

Seventh Circuit Upholds Use of Pole Camera by Police to Record Activities at Front of Home

  Tuesday, November 12, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

As part of a drug trafficking investigation, law enforcement installed a pole camera pointed at an individual's home. The evidence gathered from the camera, along with other evidence gathered by law enforcement, was used to charge the resident with intent to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, distribution of marijuana, among other crimes. The resident moved to suppress the evidence from the pole camera, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the district court denied the motion. He was ultimately convicted by a jury. 

The resident appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against him, finding no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit determined that he had no expectation of privacy for activities conducted in front of and outside of the resident's home. U.S. v. House (7th Cir. November 5, 2024). The Seventh Circuit noted that the resident had taken no action to shield the activities taking place at the front of the residence, and that law enforcement's use of the pole camera provided no greater view to the activities taking place at the front of the home than could have been observed by an ordinary passerby.

Post Authored by Madeline Tankersley & Julie Tappendorf

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 88 - Election Special

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 88 - Election Special

  Friday, November 08, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink just released Episode 88 of its Quorum Forum Podcast:  Quorum Forum 88: Election Special

The 2025 consolidated election season is kicking off with its usual verve and a host of complex issues to address. Local election officials and electoral boards have many responsibilities to make elections happen. Meanwhile, local governments are asked to enforce political sign regulations and electioneering laws. Local governments may get involved in elections themselves with their own referenda and public questions. To help listeners tackle these issues, Ancel Glink attorneys Erin Monforti and Katie Nagy update a classic Quorum Forum election special, featuring insight from Ancel Glink's own Keri-Lyn Krafthefer! 

Read More

Court Rejects Police Officers' First Amendment Lawsuit Relating to their Personal Social Media Activities

Court Rejects Police Officers' First Amendment Lawsuit Relating to their Personal Social Media Activities

  Friday, November 01, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

A federal district court recently rejected police officers' claims that their First Amendment rights were violated by a city after the officers were disciplined or terminated for their personal social media activities. Fenico v. City of Philadelphia.

The officers' Facebook posts were brought to light by the "Plain View Project," a database of public social media posts and comments of current and former police officers across the country. According to the district court's opinion, the database includes over 5,000 posts and comments by police officers which Plain View deemed likely to "undermine public trust and confidence in police." Over 3,000 of the posts were attributed to Philadelphia police officers according to the Plain View Project.

After the posts and comments of city police officers were brought to light, the city faced protests by a number of groups and organizations objecting to the social media activities of some of the city police officers. The city subsequently conducted an internal investigation which ultimately led to disciplinary action against many of the officers, including termination in some cases. A number of the officers filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming the city retaliated against them in violation of their First Amendment free speech rights.

The district court considered the following three factors to determine whether a government employee's free speech rights are violated: (1) whether the employee was speaking as a private citizen; (2) whether the employee spoke on a matter of public concern; and (3) whether the employee's and public's interest in the speech outweighs the government interest in avoiding disruption to government operations that could be caused by the speech. If the government employee can demonstrate they meet each of the three factors, they will prevail in a First Amendment lawsuit.

As to the first factor, the parties acknowledged that the officers spoke as "private citizens." 

With respect to the second factor, after analyzing the plaintiff-officers' social media posts, the court determined that they spoke on matters of "public concern." The court noted that even the most inappropriate, inflammatory, or controversial comments can touch on matters of public concern.

The third factor (called the Pickering Balance) required the court to balance the city's interest in avoiding significant disruption to police operations against the employee's and public's interest in the employee's speech. After analyzing the hundreds of social media posts that were part of the lawsuit (many of which are reprinted in the opinion itself), the court determined that the city established that the city's interest in protecting police operations outweighed any employee or public interest in that speech. The court noted that many of the social media posts and comments involved advocating for violence against members of protected classes, included sexist and racist imagery, etc. The city demonstrated that public confidence in these officers and the department in general was negatively impacted by the officers' social media activities, and that the activities impacted law enforcement operations for many reasons, including that the district attorney had issued letters to many of the officers that it would have to disclose their social media activities to defense attorneys in cases where the officer was involved. 

Because the plaintiff-officers did not meet the third factor required to demonstrate a First Amendment claim against the city, the court rejected the plaintiff-officers' First Amendment claims and ruled in favor of the city on all claims.

Read More