<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Illinois FOIA &amp; OMA Reference: 7(1)(d)(ii)</title>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/exemptions/7-1-d-ii/feed.xml" rel="self"/>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/exemptions/7-1-d-ii/"/>
  <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/exemptions/7-1-d-ii/</id>
  <updated>2024-12-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Chicago OEMC properly withheld shooting video under law enforcement proceedings exemption</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-84370/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-84370/</id>
    <updated>2024-12-20T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) for video footage of a shooting, but OEMC denied the request, citing that releasing the video could interfere with an active police investigation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the case and determined that no further action was warranted because the footage was exempt from disclosure under FOIA's law enforcement proceedings exemption. This means the request was denied for now, b</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Crest Hill Police Department ordered to disclose redacted crash records under FOIA</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58605/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58605/</id>
    <updated>2023-10-02T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A reporter requested records about a fatal crash from a police department. The PAC found that witness statements and information identifying an unarrested suspect could be withheld under the ongoing-investigation exemption, but the department had not shown that the remaining information was exempt. It was asked to provide redacted copies, with only permissible private, birth-date, and witness-identifying information withheld.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>IDOT improperly withheld harassment letter under FOIA 7(1)(d) enforcement proceeding exemptions</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-56109/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-56109/</id>
    <updated>2022-02-28T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A citizen requested a letter from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) regarding workplace harassment allegations. IDOT refused to release the letter, claiming it was part of an ongoing legal or enforcement process. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and decided that the letter was not part of an enforcement proceeding, meaning IDOT must release it to the requester.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Metropolitan Water Reclamation District mostly properly withheld investigatory records under 7(1)(d)(ii)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58120/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-58120/</id>
    <updated>2022-02-01T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked for documents related to a specific freight site that had received violations. The District denied the request, claiming the records were part of an ongoing investigation. The Attorney General's office found that while the District was mostly correct to withhold the records, they should have released some non-sensitive information.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Chicago Police Department did not violate FOIA by withholding body camera footage under 7(1)(d)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-60599/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-60599/</id>
    <updated>2020-01-10T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A journalist requested police body camera footage from a search warrant execution at a private home. The Chicago Police Department denied the request, citing law enforcement exemptions. The Attorney General's office agreed that the police department did not violate the law, noting that the department is not required to release the footage even if the subjects of the video provide consent.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Village of Forest Park no violation for withholding police video under law enforcement exemptions</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-32130/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-32130/</id>
    <updated>2019-03-29T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The question was whether the Village of Forest Park properly withheld surveillance videos of a hit-and-run under FOIA Section 7(1)(d) exemptions, including an unargued but implicated Section 7(1)(d)(iii) fair-trial exemption. The Public Access Bureau held that the Village did not improperly deny the request at the time it was submitted, because disclosure during the pendency of the criminal prosecution would have created a substantial likelihood of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The re</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Illinois Department of Revenue did not violate FOIA by withholding audit manual sections</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-13591/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-13591/</id>
    <updated>2018-10-30T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A law firm requested internal audit manuals from the Illinois Department of Revenue to understand how the state determines corporate income and sales taxes. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and concluded that the Department was legally allowed to keep these documents private to protect tax enforcement standards. This means the request for the records was denied and the case is now closed.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Duty to Provide &quot;Clear and Convincing&quot; Evidence to Support Assertion of Exemptions; Possibility of Obtaining Public Records through Discovery Does Not Preclude FOIA Requests</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2013-pac-25483/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2013-pac-25483/</id>
    <updated>2013-11-12T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The requester asked the police department for a copy of a specific police report, but the department denied the request, claiming disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and could deprive someone of a fair trial. The department also argued the requester should instead obtain the report through court discovery procedures. The PAC held that the department's justifications were vague and conclusory, failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that either exemption applied, </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
