Cook County Sheriff's Office violated FOIA by retroactively calling request voluminous

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.

Assistant General Counsel Sheriffs Office of Cook County 50 West Washington, Room 704 compilation of more than 500' pages of letter or legal- sized pages of public records. Under section 3. 6, a requester has 10 business days to amend the request in such a way that the public body will no longer treat the request as voluminous. hell did not respond to the section 3. 6 notification, the Sheriffs Office notified him on February 24, 2016, that it was extending the time for response until March 2, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the Sheriffs Office noti hell that it had compiled the responsive records, and that it would charge him ford copies in excess of the first 50 pages under section 6( b) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 6(b) ( West 2014)). On March 30, 2016, the Sheriffs Office hell the first 50 pages of records responsive to his request without charge.

On April 19, 2016, this office sent a copy of the Request for Review to the Sheriffs Office and requested a detailed description of the handlin ll' s request, including the date on which the Sheriffs Office received the request, and an explanation of the legal and factual bases for treating the request as voluminous under section 3. 6 of FOIA. The Sheriffs Office submitted a response on May 2, 2016. On May 11, 2016, this office forwarded a copy of the Sheriffs Office's respons hell; he did not reply.

DETERMINATION

compilation of more than 500 pages of public records, the Sheriff' s Office did not improperly treat the request as a " voluminous request."' Notification of Voluminous Request Section 3. 6( a) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 3. 6( a) ( West 2014)) describes the procedures for'notifying a requester that a public body is treating a request as a voluminous request, and provides in relevant part that "[ n] otwithstanding any provision of this Act to the contrary, a public body shall respond to a voluminous request within 5 business days after receipt." Emphasis added.) In addition, section 3( i) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 3( i) ( West 2014)) provides that:

t] he time periods for compliance or denial of a request to inspect or copy records set out in this Section shall not apply to requests for records made for a commercial purpose, requests by a recurrent requester, or voluminous requests. Such requests shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 3. 1, 3. 2, and 3.6, as applicable. (Emphasis added.)

The Sheriffs Office first responde ll' s request on February 1, 2016, by extending the time to respond, until February 8, 2016, citing section 3. Typically, a public body may assert an extension of time of up to five business days for any of the seven reasons enumerated in section 3( e) ( 5 ILCS 140/ 3( e) ( West 2014)). The plain language of section 3. 6( a), however, requires that a public body notify a requester that it is treating a request as a voluminous request within five business days of receipt of the request, and does not provide for an extension of time to respond under section 3( e). In addition,' section 3( i) specifies that the time periods for compliance provided in section 3. 6, rather than the time periods in section 3, govern voluminous requests. It is undisputed that the Sheriffs Office did not no hell that it was treating his request as a voluminous request until February 8, 2016, which was more than five business days after it received the request on January 25, 2016. Accordingly, this office concludes that the Sheriffs Office did not timely no hell that it was treating his request as a " voluminous request."

I hell has contested the Sheriffs Office's treatment of his request as voluminous, but has not sought a specific remedy. In contrast to sections 3( d) and 3( f) of FOIA 5 I!LCS 140/ 3( d), ( 1) ( West 2014)), section 3. 6 does not provide for a fee waiver( or any other penalty) in the case of a late response. Based on the information provided by the Sheriffs Office, except for its delayed assertion that the request was voluminous, it complied with the provisions of section 3. 6. On March 30, 2016, the Sheriffs Office furnished the first 50 pages of records to without charge. Under these circumstances, FOIA does not prohibit the Sheriffs Office from charging fees in accordance with section 6(b) of FOIA for paper copies of thelremaining records. Accordingly, no remedial action is required.

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does notirequire the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter shall serve to close this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Springfield address on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, NEIL P. OLSON Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 40373 f 36 vol req proper improper county