Village of Bartlett properly redacted witness-identifying info from police report under 7(1)(d)(iv)

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. Coyle:

This determination letter 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 response by the Village of Bartlett ( Village) to August 7, 2024, FOIA request did not violate the requirements of FOIA.

On August 7, 2024, submitted a FOIA request to the Village seeking a specified police report. On August 9, 2024, the Village partially denied request pursuant to multiple sections of FOIA. On August 15, 2024, this office received Request for Review challenging the Village' s denial. Specifically, stated she is "just requesting the name and whatever sentence that was covered up in this report." 2

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)(d)(iv) of FOIA 3 exempts from disclosure:

d) 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:

iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement, or penal agencies[.] ( Emphasis added.)

This provision allows police departments to protect the anonymity of both confidential informants and other persons who provide them with information. See, e.g., Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety v. Town of Chicago, 348 Ill. App. 3d 188, 200-01 (2004) ( names and addresses of beat meeting participants properly redacted because they provided information to police department). A witness statement may be withheld in its entirety only if disclosure of its contents " would necessarily result in the disclosure of the identity of that source" of information This office has also previously determined that where there are a limited number of potential individuals who could have made the statement, the statement can be withheld in its entirety if the contents of the statement would unavoidably disclose the source. Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 68998, issued April 13, 2022, at 5-6 (determining that descriptions from the small number of individuals involved in an incident could be withheld from a requester who was also involved in the incident, but a statement from a witness the requester did not interact with during the incident was not exempt from disclosure). See also Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 51832, issued July 25, 2018, at 5 (determining that a public body did not improperly withhold the statements of multiple witnesses who worked in the same " small department" as the requester); Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 75565, issued September 28, 2023, at 4 determining that " information from which inferences could be drawn to limit the number of possible complainants to certain potentially identifiable individuals" was properly withheld).

Based on the plain language of section 7(1)(d)(iv), the Village did not improperly redact the name of the individual who provided information to the Village Police Department. Additionally, this office's review of the unredacted record confirms that the release of the redacted sentence would limit the number of possible witnesses to certain potentially identifiable individuals. Accordingly, the Village has sustained its burden of demonstrating that the name of the individual and the single sentence of the report are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA. Because the information was properly withheld under section 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA, this office will not address the other exemptions asserted by the Village.

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 82571 f 71div proper mun