Chicago Police Department properly withheld ALPR user guide under 7(1)(o)

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 Mr. Ward and Mr. Ganiyu:

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 discussed below, this office concludes that the Chicago Police Department (CPD) did not improperly deny Mr. Christopher Ward's May 24, 2024, FOIA request.

On that date, Mr. Ward, on behalf of People's Fabric, submitted a FOIA request to CPD seeking "[a]n instructional manual for the in-car usage of the ALPR [Automated License Plate Reader] system[.]" 1 On June 3, 2024, CPD denied Mr. Ward's request pursuant to section 7(1)(o) of FOIA.2 On the same day, Mr. Ward submitted the above-referenced Request for Review challenging CPD's denial of his FOIA request.

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 "has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence" that a record is 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)(o) exempts from disclosure:

Administrative or technical information associated with automated data processing operations, including but not limited to software, operating protocols, computer abstracts, file layouts, source listings, object modules, load modules, user guides, documentation pertaining to all logical and physical design of computerized systems, employee manuals, and any other information that, if disclosed, would jeopardize the security of the system or its data or the security of materials exempt under this Section. (Emphasis added.)

In Chapman v. Chicago Department of Finance, 2023 IL 128300, the Illinois Supreme Court analyzed the scope of section 7 (1 )( o) and concluded that the ten items listed in the exemption-software, operating protocols, computer program abstracts, file layouts, source listings, object modules, load modules, user guides, documentation pertaining to all logical and physical design of computerized systems, and employee manuals-are per se exempt from disclosure. Chapman, 2023 IL 128300, ,r 41. In other words, the Court held that a public body need not demonstrate that the types of records expressly listed in section 7 (1 )( o) would jeopardize security if disclosed. Chapman, 2023 IL 128300, ,r 40. The court emphasized that if "the General Assembly intended to require the government agency to show disclosure of CPD provided most of its response confidentially, and therefore, this office cannot disclose the substance of CPD's arguments. 4 This office has reviewed the withheld user guide, however, and confirmed that it contains administrative and technical information associated with automated data processing operations, specifically, the Auto Vu Patroller software application. Because such user guides are per se exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(o), this office concludes that CPD did not improperly deny the user guide under that exemption.

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. If you have any questions, you may contact me by mail at the Springfield address listed on the first page of this letter, by phone at (217) 782-9054, or by e-mail at [email protected]. This letter serves to close this file.

Very truly yours, CALEB L. BRISCOE Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 823 83 f 71 o proper pd