Recent Court Decisions

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.

The public body must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(c). A 7(1)(c) personal privacy exemption claim requires the balancing of the public’s interest in disclosure of certain information against the individual’s privacy interest. Close family members of a decedent may have a right of privacy in the disclosure of records concerning the decedent. To determine if the public interest outweighs any privacy rights four factors are considered and weighed: (1) the requester’s interest in disclosure, (2) the public interest in disclosure, (3) the degree of invasion of personal privacy, and (4) the availability of alternative means of obtaining the requested information.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The public body received a FOIA request for lists of outside counsel, including the agencies represented and a description of their work. The lists provided by the public body are not exempt by section 7(1)(m) of FOIA. The lists contain only general information about the legal services provided for the public body. The lists do not contain litigation plans, mental impressions, legal advice, or legal theories. Additionally, rates paid to outside counsel are subject to disclosure because the records pertain to the use of public funds by the State.

Compiling information already in the public body’s possession into a different format in order to respond to a FOIA request does not constitute the creation of a new record.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk