Illinois State Police properly withheld jail surveillance footage under 7(1)(e)

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 Ms. Martynowski:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/ 9.5(f) (West 2023 Supp.)). For the reasons stated below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the Illinois State Police (ISP) did not improperly deny s February 22, 2024, FOIA request.

On that date, submitted a FOIA request to ISP seeking videos associated with report number 23-40371600043 regarding the death of at Peoria County Jail. On March 1, 2024, ISP extended its time to respond pursuant to section 3(e) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(e) (West 2022)). On March 8, 2024, ISP responded by asserting that compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome pursuant to section 3(g) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/3(g) (West 2022)) and offering an opportunity to narrow her request. On April 22, 2024, ISP provided with a supplemental response granting the request for recordings of the jail lobby area but denying videos of other areas in the jail pursuant to sections On April 25, 2024, ISP responded that video footage depicting the cell was exempt pursuant to section 7(1)(e) of FOIA. On that same date, submitted the above-referenced Request for Review contesting ISP's denial of video depicting the cell.

On April 26, 2024, this office sent a copy of the Request for Review to ISP and asked it to provide unredacted copies of the withheld videos for our confidential review, together with a detailed explanation of the factual and legal bases for the applicability of the asserted exemptions. Having received no response, this office sent additional correspondence to ISP on May 16, 2024, again asking it to respond. On May 24, 2024, this office received the requested materials. On May 30, 2024, this office forwarded a copy of ISP's written response to she did not reply.

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).

Section 7(1)(e) of FOIA exempts from disclosure "[ r]ecords that relate to or affect the security of correctional institutions and detention facilities." In Glynn v. Dep't of Corrections, the Illinois Appellate Court held that this exemption " applies to records that could jeopardize the security of a correctional center or detention facility if disclosed, rather than any records merely pertaining to security in any manner whatsoever." 2 Therefore, when a public body withholds records under section 7(1)(e), it carries the burden of demonstrating "that disclosure of a requested record could pose a potential security risk to a correctional facility." 3 https:// The court further explained that it did "not doubt that many prison surveillance camera footage will be found to be exempt under this court' s interpretation of section 7(1)(e)," but that determination requires consideration of variables such as "the type of room filmed, the contents Referencing this office' s previous determinations, 5 ISP argued in its response to this office that the footage at issue likewise posed a security threat if released. Specifically, ISP argued that " video depicting the Peoria County Jail corridors, inmate common area, and employee restricted areas were withheld for security purposes as it affects the security of the Jail's employees and inmates." 6 ISP noted that such video could reveal blind spots that could be exploited by detainees.

Although ISP's justification for withholding the footage was somewhat vague and conclusory, this office' s review of the footage confirms that its disclosure could pose a potential security risk to the facility. The footage responsive to s request for "video that shows the cell" depicts a jail common area that includes the doorway of the cell, rather than merely that cell or its interior.7 This footage would reveal most, but not all, of the common area, including significant blind spots that potentially could be exploited by inmates to evade detection of dangerous or impermissible conduct. Under these circumstances, this office concludes that ISP did not improperly withhold the contested footage under section 7(1)(e).

Very truly yours, BENJAMIN J. SILVER Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 81194 f 71e proper pd sa