Disclosure of Number of Police Officers Assigned to Districts

This reading view follows the source PDF's positioned text blocks. Page headers, repeated office furniture, and lower-margin notes are kept out of the narrative; source notes are available below. Reconstruction is automatic and imperfect — the PDF is the authoritative version, and it's linked on this page.

Dear Officer Bove:

This binding opinion is issued pursuant to Section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(, added by Public Act 96-542, effective January 1, 2010).

Background On October 25, 2010, Joseph Mahr, a reporter with the Chicage Tribune (Tribune) submitted a FOIA request to the Department which sought records that contain the current sum of the number of sworn officers assigned to each district. On November 1, 2010, the Department denied this FOIA request, citing the Section 7(1)(v) (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(v)) exemption. On December 28, 2010, this Office received the 7ribune’s Request for Review. On January 7, 2011, we notified the Department that we would require additional information in order to determine whether the Department’s response complied with FOIA. Since that time, we have received a written response from the Department (including a partially redacted affidavit of Deputy Superintendent Ernest T. Brown, dated January 25, 2011) as well as additional correspondence from the Tribune, all of which we have considered in making a determination regarding this matter.

Section 1.2 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/1.2) provides that “[a]ll records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection and copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt.” Therefore, in the context of a Request for Review, the The Department asserts that the requested records are exempt under Section 7(1)(v) of FOIA, which exempts from inspection and copying the following:

Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community’s population or systems, facilities or installations, the destruction or contamination of which would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, or to tactical operations.

In its initial response to Mr. Mahr’s FOIA request, the Department asserted:

The information that you are requesting pertains to the mobilization and deployment of Chicago Police Department personnel. ... It can be reasonably expected that the information that you have requested could be used to undermine the effectiveness of the City’s security measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them, This would then constitute a clear and present danger to the health and safety of the community.

In its Request for Review, the Tribune states that “[d]isclosing how many of the CPD’s approximately 13,000 sworn officers are assigned to each of 25 districts cannot possibly limit the effectiveness of security measures.” Moreover, it states that the Department misconstrues Section 7(1)(v) which, “[b]y its terms, . . . is limited to situations where destruction or contamination of facilities would cause a clear and present danger to public health.”

In response to our request for additional information, the Department also argues that, because the Tribune seeks “details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel”, the requested records are exempt per se under Section 7(1)(v) . It argues further that, even if the requested records are not deemed exempt per se, those records fall within what the Department characterizes as “the first portion of the definition” in Section 7(1)(v). Deputy Superintendent Brown’s affidavit, submitted with this response, avers in part that:

Although the number of sworn police officers is a generally static number for each of the 25 districts, the CPD Command Staff make decisions on deployment of resources, i.e., additional sworn police officers, that may be detailed or assigned to target a certain district and/or beat of a district in response to a large event, a series of violent incidents or other such threat to the public within that area, Analysis As noted above, Section 7(1)(v) exempts from disclosure:

Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community’s population or systems, facilities or installations, the destruction or contamination of which would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, or to tactical operations.

By its terms, this exemption applies to particular types of “vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans”, namely those that are “designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community’s population or systems, facilities or installations, the destruction or contamination of which would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community” and only in circumstances where “disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of [these] measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public” protected by these measures. This exemption is applicable to assessments, measures, policies and plans designed to address those potential attacks targeted at the destruction or contamination of a community’s population or infrastructure. Contrary to the Department’s contention, the second sentence of this exemption does not modify the nature of the information made exempt under the first sentence. Thus, the second sentence does not generally exempt “details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment”. Rather, it only exempts such information to the extent disclosure “would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community”, and “only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the [particular types of measures identified in the first sentence of the definition] or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public.”

Findings and Conclusions After full review and giving due consideration to the positions of the parties, the Attorney General finds that:

2) The Chicago Police Department possesses records responsive to the Tribune’s request but has asserted that the records constitute “vulnerability assessments, security measures, [or] response policies or plans” that are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(v) of the Freedom of Information Act.

3) The Department has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the records in question constitute “vulnerability assessments, security measures, [or] response policies or plans” as described in the first sentence of Section 7(1)(v). Further, the Department has failed to demonstrate how the disclosure of records containing the current sum of the number of sworm officers assigned to each district could “reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of [any security] measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public.”

4) Accordingly, records of the Chicago Police Department containing the current sum of the number of sworn officers assigned to each district are not exempt from disclosure under Section 7(1)(v) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the Chicago Police Department has violated FOIA by improperly denying The Chicago Tribune’s request for records containing the current sum of the number of sworn officers assigned to each police district. The Department is required to provide copies of the requested records to Mr. Mahr pursuant to his October 25, 2010 request. Under Section 9.5(f) of FOIA, the Department must either immediately comply with this binding opinion or initiate administrative review under Section 11.5 of FOIA.

This opinion shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency for the purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law. 735 ILCS 4/3-101 et seg. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision by filing a complaint for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook or Sangamon County within 35 days of the date of the decision naming the Attorney General of Illinois and Mr. Joseph Mahr as defendants. See 5 ILCS 140/11.5.

Sincerely,

LISA MADIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: (Listee- Garde.

Michael J. Luke Senior Assistant Attorney General Chief, Public Access and Opinions ° Division Mr. Brendan Healey Senior Counsel/Media & Promotions Chicago Tribune Via e-mail to: [email protected] 11568 rfr f pb ex improper pd