Macoupin County Sheriff's Department properly denied jail security records under 7(1)(d)(vi)

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 and Mr. Garrison:

On August 16, 2017, this office forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Sheriffs Department and asked'it to provide copies of the records thatwere withheld for.this office' s confidential review, together with a detailed explanation of the legal and: factual basis for the asserted exemption.: On August 28, 2017, this office received those materials from the Macoupin County' s State' s Attorney' s Office ( State' s Attorney' s Office) on behalf ofthe Sheriffs Department, including both a complete and a redacted 'version of its written response.' The State' s Attorneys Office maintained that the requested records were` exempt from disclosure under section 2. 15( c) of FOIA but asserted that the records were further exempt pursuant to section 7( 1)( d)( vi) ofFOIA ( 5. ILCS 140/ 7( 1)( d)( vi) (West 2016)). ; On' Septerrtber 1, 2017, this office -forwarded a copy ofthe State's Attorney's Office's redacted response to He replied on September 10, 2017,"asserting that as a former correctional officer, who had worked Ofthe Sheriffs Department for 26 years, he " ha[ d] no reason to;cause'harm or try to get someone out of the facility." 2

DETERMINATION

All records m the custody or' possession of a public body are, presumed` to be: `, open to inspection or copying." 5 ILCS 140/ 1. 2 (West 2( 16); Ave also"Southern Illinoisan v." Illinois Department ofPublic Health, 218 I11. 2d 390, 415 ( 2006)_ A public body that withholds.' records " has the burden ofproving by clear and convincing: evidence" that the records are' exefnpt from disclosure. 5 ILCS 140/ 1. 2 ( West 2016): The exemptions from disclosure are to be owly.construed. Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Leila is University; 176I11. 2d 401, 407 1997).

As an initial matter, this office notes that section 2: 15( c) of FOIA pertains only to arrest reports. Section' 7( 1)( d)(vi) of FOIA, however, contains the same language as section' 2. 15( c)( ii) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS' 140/ 2. 15( c)( ii) (West 2016)), and section 7( 1)( d)( vi) is not limited to arrest reports.' Section 7( 1)( d)( vi) of FOIA Section 7( 1)( d)( vi) of FOIA exempts from disclosure:

Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would:

4 * vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person[.]

In its redacted response, the State' s Attorneys Office stated that the Sheriffs Department' s current staffing and jail monitoring policies and procedures are the same as those in effect in 2015. According to the State' s Attorneys Office, the Macoupin County jail consists of two levels with five general population rooms for men, two for women, and a work release room. The Sheriff' s Department' s policy is to check each room every 30 minutes. During these checks, the State's Attorneys Office stated, the correctional officer on duty records his or her round through an electronic machine, which documents the officers time, location, and status of the room. The State' s Attorney' s Office asserted that disclosure of the recorded information would reveal " the times and locations of our correctional officers while on duty[,]" including when the control room is occupied by only one correctional officer and when officers are away from certain rooms. 4 The State' s Attomey' s office further asserted:

The information can be used to aid in breaking individuals out of our jail or knowing where a correctional officer is isolated to harm him or her. Furthermore, it can be used to help inmates learn the pattern of our correctional officers to gain opportunities to harm each other or staff 151 This office has reviewed copies of the records documenting the rounds at issue and determined that the records contain detailed information about jail staffing and scheduling. The information includes the specific times and locations of the correctional officers on duty for each shift and 4Letter from Jordan J. Garrison, Assistant State' s Attorney, State's Attorney of Macoupin County, to Teresa Lim, Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau ( August 28, 2017).

5Letter from Jordan . 1. Garrison, Assistant State' s Attorney, State' s Attorney of Macoupin County, to Teresa Lim, Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau ( August 28, 2017).

vacant areas of the jail not covered by officers. This office agrees that the disclosure of such detailed information could endanger the life or physical safety of the correctional officers monitoring the jail by identifying their locations and potential vulnerable spots where officers are less supported. Although sought records of rounds from two years ago, the State' s Attorney' s Office explained that the shift policies and duties of the correctional officers have not changed since 2015. Consequently, jail round records from 2015 would still reveal relevant details about staffing that, if released, could pose a risk to the safety of correctional officers who currently work at the jail as well as the detainees. While may not have intended to use the records in a manner that would pose any type of safety risk, the disclosure and potential further dissemination of the records may lead, inadvertently or otherwise, to a person using the records in a manner that would pose a significant safety risk to law enforcement personnel. Accordingly, this office concludes that the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7( 1)( d)( vi) of FOIA.

In his reply to this office, offered an alternative option to resolve his complaint. He stated, in pertinent part:

Due to the business of my request and trying to work with the sheriff department I will alter my request to the following conditions that I think we can all agree to. If the sheriff department will in writing state that all rounds were made in my request for a total of 48 rounds in a calendar day for all days that I originally requested. That they will run the print offs on the computer program stating the rounds for your review to verify that the rounds were made. I do not need the actual copies of the rounds from the program. * * * If you see the print outs and all the rounds were made on all the days I originally requested then I will be satisfied. If there are rounds not made that the program shows I need to know the dates and times of the incident and who the officers were on that day and time. 161 While the Sheriffs Department may elect to confirm whether or not the rounds at issue were made, it is not obligated to do so under FOIA, nor is this office authorized to reveal the specific contents of the records the Sheriff' s Department provided for this office' s confidential review. FOIA does not require a public body to answer questions or create records in response to a FOIA request. Kenyon v. Garrels, 184 Ill. App. 3d 28, 32 ( 4th Dist. 1989).

6Letter from to Teresa Lim, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General Office, State of Illinois ( September 10, 2017).

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter shall serve to close this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Chicago address listed on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours,

TERESA LIM

Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 49142 f 71 dvi proper co