PAC Issues 14th Binding Opinion Finding a Public Body in Violation of FOIA
In October 2024, a reporter submitted a FOIA request to a State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”) asking for policies on police-involved shootings and in-custody deaths, as well as SAO reports regarding these cases since 2019. The SAO responded stating that it performed a search, but did not identify any responsive records. The same requestor submitted a second FOIA request to the SAO seeking records reflecting SAO findings about bringing charges in a specific police-involved shooting case from 2021. The SAO identified a responsive letter between the SAO and the Illinois State Police, but denied the letter in its entirety. The requestor then filed a request for review with the PAC claiming that the SAO’s FOIA responses were inconsistent, because the first response said that the SAO did not have any responsive records, but the second response identified a responsive record which the SAO withheld from disclosure.
After the request for review was filed, the SAO provided the record to the requestor, and the PAC closed the file. Then, the requestor renewed his first request, and the SAO again responded that it did not possess any responsive records. After the requestor submitted a new request for review, the PAC requested the SAO to explain how it searched for responsive records to the first request. The SAO responded by claiming that it was unduly burdensome to search for and compile records responsive to the first request.
In PAC Binding Op. 24-014, the PAC concluded that the SAO violated FOIA by not performing a reasonable search for records, and improperly denying a FOIA request.
First, the PAC said that the SAO failed to explain how it conducted its search for records responsive to the first request, did not describe its recordkeeping systems, or why the SAO could not electronically search its recordkeeping systems (e.g., e-mail accounts) or consult with employees who would have been authorized or aware of these type of reports.
The PAC also rejected the SAO’s argument that it was not required to search for responsive reports unless the requestor named the subjects of the reports, because a requestor is only required to identify the records being requested by describing their contents.
Finally, the PAC rejected the SAO’s claim that the first request was unduly burdensome because the SAO did not follow the proper statutory procedure, including providing the requestor with an opportunity to narrow the request to manageable proportions. As a result, the PAC determined that the SAO forfeited the ability to deny the request on that basis in response to the request for review.
Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink
