Can you request public-business texts or emails on an Illinois official’s personal account?
Sources checked October 17, 2026.
Yes, sometimes. A personal phone number, email address, or account does not decide the issue by itself. Illinois FOIA asks whether a communication concerns the transaction of public business and whether it was prepared by or for, used by, received by, possessed by, or under the control of a public body. A truly personal message about private affairs is outside that definition. And for individual elected officials’ personal devices, the answer can depend on how the public body acted and whether it possessed or controlled the communication.
That last point matters. In City of Champaign v. Madigan, the appellate court rejected the broad claim that every public-business message on an official’s personal device is automatically a public record. It held that the council messages at issue were records because they concerned city business and were sent or received while the council was convened and functioning collectively as the public body. The court explained that a message to one council member at home on a personal device would not be subject to FOIA on those facts unless it was forwarded to enough members to constitute a quorum, or otherwise came within the statute’s possession or control terms. The court also said a communication to a city-issued device was under the city’s control. City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, ¶¶ 30–44 (official court opinion PDF).
What the statute covers
FOIA defines “public records” broadly to include electronic communications and other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that pertain to public business and meet at least one of the listed links to a public body: prepared by or for it, used by it, received by it, in its possession, or under its control. The terms work together. A message can concern government business yet still require a separate analysis of whether it was prepared by or for, used by, received by, possessed by, or controlled by the public body. 5 ILCS 140/2(a), (c).
Section 3 requires a public body to make its public records available for inspection or copying, subject to the Act’s rules and exemptions. Send the request to the public body’s FOIA officer, not an individual official as though that official were a separate FOIA agency. 5 ILCS 140/3.
How the cases fit together
The Attorney General’s binding Public Access Opinion 11-006 (2011) concerned text messages and emails sent or received on personal devices during city council meetings about city business. It concluded those messages were public records. The Fourth District appellate court later affirmed disclosure on the meeting-specific facts but narrowed the reasoning: the statutory test is not simply “public business plus personal device.” The public body must also satisfy one of section 2(c)’s preparation, use, receipt, possession, or control connections. Read 11-006 together with Champaign, which is the controlling appellate decision on this question.
In PAC determination 2019 PAC 59166, concerning a park district commissioner’s texts during board meetings, the PAC found that the district’s inquiry was inadequate when it did not require a search of the personal phone. It directed the district to ask the commissioner whether she possessed responsive public-business texts on personal devices used at board meetings, search, and issue a supplemental response. This non-binding, fact-specific letter does not displace the appellate rule in Champaign.
In 2022 PAC determination concerning Requests 70344, 70349, 70357, and 70358, the PAC found the Niles-Maine District Library’s search inadequate for records about a consultant contract and library business on trustees’ accounts. It explained that trustees could transact public business outside meetings and directed the library to have trustees search their personal accounts and devices for communications concerning library business within the specified time period. It did not hold that every message about public affairs is a record: read this non-binding, fact-specific letter with section 2(c) and the appellate rule in Champaign.
The limit applies in the other direction too. In PAC determination on Request 71689 (2023), the PAC found no violation when the mayor’s office redacted texts that concerned condolences, greetings, and other purely private affairs. Messages that do not pertain to public business are not public records under section 2(c), even if they appear in the same text thread as government-related messages.
Asking for a search and responsive records
Describe the communication, the public body’s work it concerns, the likely custodians, and a reasonable date range. If you know that officials texted during a specific meeting, identify the meeting date and ask for messages sent or received during the meeting. If the matter involved an individual trustee or commissioner outside a meeting, identify the decision, contract, project, or official action and ask the body to assess the section 2(c) criteria rather than treating the device’s ownership as dispositive.
You can adapt this request:
Under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, I request electronic copies of text messages, emails, and other electronic communications from [date] through [date] concerning [specific public-body matter or action]. Please search the relevant public-body accounts and devices and ask [named officials, offices, or roles] to search accounts and devices they used for this public-body business, including personal accounts or phones where responsive communications may be located. This request covers communications that were prepared by or for, used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of the public body, as provided in 5 ILCS 140/2(c). Please include responsive communications about the matter even if sent outside a meeting, and exclude purely personal communications unrelated to public business. Please provide nonexempt portions with redactions authorized by law and identify the specific basis for any withholding. If no responsive records are located, please describe the offices and custodians searched.
The wording asks for records the law covers; it does not establish that every communication in a personal account is controlled by the public body. A focused request helps the FOIA officer identify the records and custodians without treating unrelated private conversations as responsive.
The court and PAC examples also show why a body should not end its inquiry at “we do not own that phone.” A reasonable search may require the public body to ask relevant officials to search personal devices for responsive public-body records, as the PAC directed in the determinations on Requests 59166 and 70344/70349/70357/70358. Whether located messages qualify as public records remains a distinct question under section 2(c) and Champaign. Ask the body to explain the scope of its search and its basis if it says personal accounts were not searched.
Exemptions and private content
First decide whether the communication is a public record. Then consider whether an exemption permits withholding or redaction. Section 7(1)(c) protects personal information in public records when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; the statute defines that phrase by balancing highly personal or objectionable information against the legitimate public interest. Information bearing on public duties of public employees and officials is not an invasion of personal privacy under that provision. Section 7(1)(b) separately covers specified “private information,” including personal phone numbers and personal email addresses. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b), (c).
Section 7(1) permits redaction of exempt information in a record that also contains nonexempt information. Thus a thread may contain public-business messages and private greetings or personal details; the public body should assess the responsive content and any lawful redactions rather than treating the entire thread as automatically public or automatically private. Other exemptions may apply depending on the content and context. A denial should identify the exemption and give the required factual and legal basis under section 9. 5 ILCS 140/7(1), 9.
If the body says that no records exist, ask which custodians and accounts it searched and whether it asked officials likely to hold the communications to search. If it denies access or withholds messages, compare the explanation with the request’s subject, date range, and the section 2(c) criteria. The guides to FOIA denials and the search-and-production topic hub explain next steps. For PAC materials on the definition of a public record, see the public-records-definition topic hub. Use the FOIA request builder to prepare a focused request and submit it to the public body’s FOIA officer.
Sources and scope
Checked October 17, 2026 against the current Illinois General Assembly text of 5 ILCS 140/2, section 3, section 7, and section 9; the official original PDFs of PAC Opinion 11-006 and City of Champaign v. Madigan; and the original PAC determination PDFs for 2019 PAC 59166, 2022 PAC 70344/70349/70357/70358, and 2023 PAC 71689. The PAC determination letters are non-binding and fact-specific. No single factor, including use of a personal device or account, resolves whether a communication is a public record. The result can depend on the communication’s subject, the public body’s role, timing and use, and the record’s possession or control. This guide is general information, not legal advice.