Village of Libertyville properly withheld police reports under section 7(1)(c) personal privacy exemption

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

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(c) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(c) (West 2023 Supp.)). For the reasons explained below, this office has determined that your Request for Review is unfounded.

You submitted an undated FOIA request to the Village of Libertyville ( Village) seeking all police reports concerning two individuals who resided at a specific residential address. On September 9, 2024, the Village denied your request pursuant to sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA, 1 asserting that disclosure of the withheld reports would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. On September 25, 2024, this office received your Request for Review contesting the Village's response.

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 When balancing the right to privacy against the public interest in disclosure, courts have " repeatedly expressed particular concern for protecting those who have been investigated, but not charged, in connection with a crime from the public embarrassment and damage to their reputations which a disclosure of the investigative interest would cause." Dunaway v. Webster, 519 F. Supp. 1059, 1078 ( N.D. Cal. 1981). The right to privacy " is strongest where the individuals in question ' have been investigated but never publicly charged.'" Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States Dep't of Justice, 846 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C., 2012), quoting American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Dep't of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Public Access Bureau has previously determined that in appropriate circumstances, a report can be withheld in its entirety if the report's narrative contains highly personal information about an individual, no arrests were made, and the matter is closed at the time of the request. Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 32478, issued October 4, 2016, at 3 (report of domestic disturbance involving a police officer properly withheld where no arrests were made and the case was closed); see also Copley Press, Inc. v. City of Springfield, 266 Ill. App. 3d 421, 426 ( 1994) ( finding an investigative file may be withheld in full under section 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA 2 where " redaction of the file cannot be meaningfully accomplished[ ]" to protect the identities of witnesses).

On October 1, 2024, the Village furnished this office with unredacted copies of the two reports. Based on this office's review, the reports contain highly personal information concerning a private incident that occurred at a private residence, and there is no indication that the incident resulted in any arrests or criminal charges. Because your request identified the subjects by name and address, redaction of those individuals' names and identifying information from the responsive records would not protect their identities. Further, the specific nature of the conduct and circumstances described in the report could potentially reveal the identities of the records' subjects even if the FOIA request did not identify them by name.

Very truly yours, MATTHEW C. ROGINA Senior Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 83212 f unf mun cc: Via electronic mail Mr. Benjamin Schuster Elrod Friedman LLP 325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 450 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Benjamin. Schuster@ElrodFriedman. com