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