Village of Glenview improperly withheld police report in its entirety

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 Ms. Hoerner and Ms. Tappendorf:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 1 For the reasons that follow, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Village of Glenview ( Village) improperly withheld records all records responsive to Ms. Emily Hoerner' s July 12, 2023, FOIA request.

On that date, Ms. Hoerner, on behalf of the Chicago Tribune, submitted a FOIA request to the Village seeking a copy of a specified police report. On July 14, 2023, the Village denied Ms. Hoerner' s FOIA request in its entirety pursuant to sections 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA. 2 On July 25, 2023, Ms. Hoerner submitted the above- referenced Request for Review challenging the Village' s denial.

DETERMINATION

All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying." 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2022); see also Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Dep't of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 415 (2006). A public body that withholds records " has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence" that the records are exempt from disclosure. 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2022). The exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed. Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 (1997). Section 7(1) of FOIA generally requires public bodies to disclose the non-exempt portions of responsive records, though a request may be denied in its entirety if the records cannot be redacted in a manner that would protect the identity of the individual whose privacy interest is at stake." 3 Schonberger v. National Transportation Safety Board, 508 F. Supp. 941, 945 (D.D.C. 1981).

Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA exempts from disclosure "[ p]ersonal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information." Section 7(1)(c) defines " unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" as " the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject' s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information[,]" except that "[ t]he disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy." A public body's assertion that the release of information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is evaluated on a case- by-case basis. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union 130 v. Dep't of Public Health, 327 Ill. App. 3d 192, 196 (2001).

This office has consistently determined that the disclosure of information identifying a victim of a criminal offense would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of Additionally, disclosure of details of alleged sex crimes constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the victim's right to privacy. McGee v. Kelley, 2017 IL App (3d) 160324, ¶¶ 18-20 (2017) (" The public has an interest in monitoring law enforcement to ensure it is acting in the public's interest. However, it is doubtful that the public has any interest in the actual details of the victim's sexual assault and battery."). See also State Journal-Register v. University of Illinois Springfield, 2013 IL App (4th) 120881, ¶ 56 (2013) (" details of * * * sexual misconduct are highly personal, which weighs heavily in favor of exemption."); Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 67495, issued June 29, 2021, at 4 (redactions in the narrative section of report consisting of a graphic description of alleged sexual offense properly redacted).

In its non-confidential response to this office, the Village explained that its denial letter noted that no arrest had been made and no charges brought so the privacy interests of the subject of the report in having this report withheld from release outweighed any public interest in the release of the report. The [ denial] letter also noted that the privacy interests of the witnesses and complainants in the report outweighed any public interest in disclosure. In addition to the invasion of personal privacy that would result from disclosure of this report, the Village' s denial letter noted that disclosing the report would reveal the identities of victims, witnesses and complaints and confidential information that is exempt under section 7(1)(d)(iv). The Village' s denial letter explained that the The Village also noted in its response that Ms. Hoerner " does not * * * dispute any of the reasons the Village raised for denying the request." 5 In her reply, Ms. Hoerner maintained that the reports should not be withheld in their entireties, arguing that the Village must disclose any information that is not considered confidential.

This office's review of the unredacted records confirms that the incident did not involve an arrest. The report contains information that would identify the suspect, the complainant, and other third parties and witnesses. Because disclosure of information identifying those individuals would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this office concludes that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(c).

The narrative section of the report discusses the alleged assault in detail as well as highly personal information about the victim's treatment at a hospital. That information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. McGee, 2017 IL App (3d) 160324, 18. However, the report also includes descriptions of the investigating officers' activities. That information bears on the public duties of public employees and, subject to the redaction of specific details of the alleged offense and information identifying the complainant, suspect, witnesses, and other third parties, may not be withheld pursuant to section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. While there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of records that shed light on the manner in which law enforcement officials perform their public duties ( Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-006, issued March 16, 2012, at 7), there is no legitimate public interest in the highly personal portions of the narrative that would outweigh the subjects' privacy rights under the circumstances of this matter.

Accordingly, this office requests that the Village disclose to Ms. Hoerner a version of the responsive report that reveals the officers' activities. The Village may withhold information identifying the complainant, suspect, and any witnesses or third parties mentioned in the report as well as the highly personal details of the alleged assault and other medical treatment The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter serves to close this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at victoria.frazier@ilag. gov. Thank you.

Very truly yours, VICTORIA FRAZIER Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 77465 f 71c proper improper mun