Chicago Police Department may require photo ID before releasing records under 7(1)(c)

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 letter 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 set forth below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that this Request for Review is unfounded.

On December 6, 2024, you submitted a FOIA request to the Chicago Police Department ( CPD) seeking records related to a December 2, 2024, incident involving criminal damage to a motor vehicle. In its December 23, 2024, response to you, CPD explained that it required a government- issued photo identification in order to confirm your identity as the victim underlying the requested incident report. Absent the receipt of a photo ID, CPD denied your request in its entirety pursuant to section 7(1)(c) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 7(1)(c) ( West 2023 Supp.), as amended by Public Acts 103-605, effective July 1, 2024). Later that same day, the Public Access Bureau received your Request for Review contesting CPD' s denial.

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." (Emphasis added.) Section 7(1)(c) defines "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" as:

T]he disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject's The Public Access Bureau has consistently determined that the disclosure of information identifying a victim of a criminal offense would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore that such information may be redacted from a record pursuant to section 7(1)(c). See, e.g., Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26904, issued April 16, 2014, at 2. Coleman v. F.B.I., 13 F. Supp. 2d 75, 80 (D.D.C. 1998) (disclosure of FBI documents would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because " it is evident that release of any portion would reveal the identities of innocent third parties, witnesses or victims."). In addition, section 7(1)(d)(iv) of FOIA1 exempts from disclosure, in relevant part, information that would unavoidably disclose the identity of persons who file complaints with or provide information to law enforcement agencies. The Illinois Appellate Court has concluded that records reflecting information provided by witnesses may be withheld in their entireties if disclosure of the contents " would necessarily result in the disclosure of the identity of that source" of the information and, therefore, "redaction of the [records] cannot be meaningfully accomplished." Copley Press, Inc. v. City of Springfield, 266 Ill. App. 3d 421, 426 ( 1994).

In a June 6, 2025, e-mail to the Deputy Public Access Counselor, CPD stated:

The requester named the victim of this criminal offense which was documented in the original case incident report. Even though the requester' s name is identical to the named victim, we have no way to verify this relationship without the requester providing to us some type of identification to verify his identity. To protect the personal privacy of a named criminal victim, we denied the request in its entirety citing 7(1)(c) which I believe to be the proper course of action. I can also confirm that there were no arrests associated with this incident.[ 2]

It is undisputed that you sought records concerning criminal damage to a named individual' s motor vehicle, which is highly personal in nature. Although you purport to be the named crime victim underlying the requested report, CPD has been unable to confirm your identity absent a photo ID. Under these circumstances, this office concludes that CPD did not improperly deny your December 6, 2024, FOIA request pursuant to section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. Accordingly, this This file is closed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Springfield address on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, CHRISTOPHER R. BOGGS Deputy Public Access Counselor Public Access Bureau 84503 f unf pd cc: Via electronic mail Mr. Vaughn C. Ganiyu Assistant General Counsel Chicago Police Department 3510 South Michigan Avenue, 5th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60653 [email protected]