FOIA section 7(1)(v)
FOIASecurity vulnerability assessments and response plans
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(v). Security vulnerability assessments and response plans
See every document citing this provision →
9 issues across 9 determination letters:7 violation found · 1 no violation · 1 no determination / resolved.
Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.
Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue
- Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 48212 cited 4 times
- Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2021 IL App (1st) 192028 cited 4 times
- Police employee attendance records (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 21-005) cited 1 times
- Excel file of scattered-site unit addresses and occupancy status (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 24-008) cited 1 times
How to challenge a denial on this issue
AI-generated summary of the decisions listed on this page, with each point linked to the letters it comes from. Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice. Open the letter and check the PDF before relying on any point.
When a challenge is strong
- The withheld record contains factual information (like ALPR locations, names, departments, or building identifiers) that does not describe a security measure, vulnerability assessment, or response plan. The Bureau has consistently found that mere factual or identifying records are not exempt under 7(1)(v) because they do not reveal security strategies designed to prevent or respond to attacks.Based on: 2026 · ALPR camera cost, lease period, a… · n.d. · Animal research protocol and medi…
- The record is a routine law enforcement or operational document (such as a police log, use of force report, or standard employee list) that does not involve a targeted security assessment or plan. The exemption is limited to measures specifically designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks; routine administrative or enforcement records fall outside that scope.Based on: n.d. · Police activity logs for a park · n.d. · Police use-of-force reports for 2… · n.d. · Employee work-from-home policies …
- The public body withheld surveillance footage, but you can show the camera is used for routine monitoring or general safety, not a specific security measure designed to prevent terrorist or similar attacks. The body must demonstrate the camera is a security measure aimed at preventing attacks, and the PAC ruled that routine monitoring does not qualify.Based on: n.d. · Police security camera footage of…
- The information you requested is already publicly known or non-specific, and the public body has not explained how disclosure would undermine the effectiveness of any security measure. The Bureau requires the body to show that release would jeopardize security; publicly available or vague information does not meet that burden.Based on: n.d. · A slide deck on civil unrest emer…
When the public body usually wins
- The record contains surveillance video from a sensitive transit platform (like CTA) and the body can reasonably show that release would jeopardize the effectiveness of its security measures. In such a case, the Bureau upheld the exemption because disclosure could reveal security blind spots or methods.Based on: n.d. · Train platform video of a fall on…
- The public body has already established that the record is exempt under another FOIA provision. The Public Access Counselor may decline to address the 7(1)(v) claim at all, so your challenge on this ground becomes moot even if it might have been strong.Based on: n.d. · A school district's tip-line poli…
Points to put in your letter
- State that the withheld information is factual or merely identifies people/departments/buildings, not a vulnerability assessment or security measure — cite D1497.2 or D857.3.Based on: 2026 · ALPR camera cost, lease period, a… · n.d. · Animal research protocol and medi…
- Argue that the record is a routine operational document (like a police log or use of force report), not a plan designed to respond to potential attacks — cite D1078.1 or D918.6.Based on: n.d. · Police activity logs for a park · n.d. · Police use-of-force reports for 2…
- If the record is video, point out that the camera does not appear to be a targeted security measure against attacks, but merely a routine monitoring tool — cite D1105.1.Based on: n.d. · Police security camera footage of…
- Show that the information is already public or non-specific, and demand that the body explain exactly how disclosure would undermine security — cite D976.2.Based on: n.d. · A slide deck on civil unrest emer…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that any record held by law enforcement or any mention of security automatically qualifies for the 7(1)(v) exemption.Based on: n.d. · Police activity logs for a park · n.d. · Police use-of-force reports for 2…
- Forgetting to check whether the public body also cited another FOIA exemption; if it did, the challenge on 7(1)(v) alone may not be enough.Based on: n.d. · A school district's tip-line poli…
- Believing that redacting names, departments, or building identifiers is always justified as a security measure.Based on: n.d. · Animal research protocol and medi…
- Accepting a denial without requiring the public body to explain specifically how disclosure would jeopardize the effectiveness of a security measure.Based on: n.d. · A slide deck on civil unrest emer… · n.d. · Police security camera footage of…
Facts to gather first
- Whether the record is a list of employees, names, or locations that do not describe security systems or response procedures.
- Whether the information already appears in public sources, news reports, or the body's own non-restricted publications.
- The stated purpose of any camera or footage (e.g., routine monitoring, traffic enforcement, general safety vs. specific anti-terrorism use).
- Any evidence that the record is part of ordinary law enforcement administration rather than a vulnerability assessment or security plan.
These notes are based on non-binding determination letters; each case depends on its specific facts, so verify the cited PDFs and consider obtaining legal advice for your situation.
Drafting brief for an AI assistant
Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: foia-7-1-v.json.
Violation found (7)
Withholding ALPR locations under section 7(1)(v)
Rule: ALPR locations are factual, not vulnerability assessments or security measures designed to prevent attacks, so section 7(1)(v) does not exempt them.
Violation found ALPR camera cost, lease period, and locations · April 23, 2026
Withholding surveillance camera footage under section 7(1)(v)
Rule: A public body must show the camera is a security measure designed to prevent attacks, not routine monitoring, to withhold footage under section 7(1)(v).
Violation found Police security camera footage of a building entrance during a protest · July 29, 2025
Redaction of police log columns under section 7(1)(v)
Rule: A public body must show that redacted records are vulnerability assessments, security measures, or response plans designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks, not merely routine law enforcement activity.
Violation found Police activity logs for a park · September 24, 2024
Section 7(1)(v) redactions of slide deck
Rule: Public body must show disclosure would undermine effectiveness; publicly known or non-specific information does not qualify for exemption.
Violation found A slide deck on civil unrest emergency response strategies · October 13, 2022
Part five withheld under section 7(1)(v)
Rule: Section 7(1)(v) applies only to vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans concerning potential attacks, not to a basic employee list.
Violation found Employee work-from-home policies and remote-work approval lists · September 14, 2021
Section 7(1)(v) vulnerability assessments
Rule: Use of force reports are not vulnerability assessments or response policies, so the exemption does not apply.
Violation found Police use-of-force reports for 2017 · September 13, 2018
Redaction of names under security measures exemption
Rule: Records merely identifying names of people, departments, companies, and buildings are not vulnerability assessments or security measures.
Violation found Animal research protocol and medical records · July 14, 2015
No violation (1)
Denial of CTA platform video footage under section 7(1)(v)
Rule: CTA platform video footage is exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(v) because its release could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of CTA's security measures.
No violation Train platform video of a fall onto the tracks · August 15, 2024
No determination / resolved (1)
Applicability of section 7(1)(v) exemption
Rule: Because the records are exempt under section 7(1)(ll), the Public Access Counselor declines to address the applicability of section 7(1)(v).
No determination / resolved A school district's tip-line policies and security protocols · June 24, 2025