City of Springfield, Sangamon County State's Attorney not required to create records or answer questions under FOIA

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 202 4 )). For the reasons set forth below, the Public Access Bureau concludes that no further action is warranted in th ese matters.

On August 11 , 2025 , you submitted a FOIA request to the City of Springfield City) seeking a record provided by Snap, Inc. in relation to a court case. Your request specified that you wanted the record " unaltered or 'unzipped '" and that you would " like a copy of the zip file that was sent by snap inc [.]" 1 On August 22, 2025, the City responded that it did not possess records responsive to your request and suggested that the Sangamon County State's Attorney's Office (State's Attorney's Office) may possess the records you sought.

On August 19, 2025, you submitted a FOIA request to the State's Attorney's Office seeking " 1. The native, unaltered zip file sent by snap inc mentioned in the certificate of authenticity 127a. 2. The original delivery record from snap inc (email, law enforcement portal, etc.). 3. Any records reflecting account attribute history or changes."2 On September 2, 2025, the State's Attorney's Office provided you with copies of the file from Snap Inc . with redactions pursuant to sections 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), and 7(1)(o) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(o) West 2024)). The State' s Attorney' s Office stated that, "[ w]hile you requested ' the native, On September 8, 2025, you completed the submission of your Requests for Review contesting the responses by the City (2025 PAC 88977) and State's Attorney's Office 2025 PAC 88978), which again specified that you seek the " native, unaltered Snap Inc. ZIP" file.4 You argued that the City' s response was inadequate because you " sought the native electronic file [.]"5 ( Emphasis in original.) You argued, citing section 6 of FOIA,6 that the State's Attorney's Office must provide the records " in the electronic format in which they are maintained when feasible [.]"7 ( Emphasis in original.)

Section 6(a) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 6(a) ( West 202 4 )) provides:

When a person requests a copy of a record maintained in an electronic format, the public body shall furnish it in the electronic format specified by the requester, if feasible . (Emphasis added.)

Feasible" is defined as " capable of being done or carried out."8 Thus, a public body must comply with a request for a record in a specific electronic format only if the public body is capable of doing so in accordance with the provisions of FOIA.

Section 7(1) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 7(1) ( West 2024)) provides:

When a request is made to inspect or copy a public record that contains information that is exempt from disclosure under this Section, but also contains information that is not exempt from disclosure, the public body may elect to redact the information that is exempt. The public body shall make the remaining information available for inspection and copying. (Emphasis added.)

Your FOIA requests and Requests for Review specifically seek "unaltered" or native" copies of the file provided by Snap Inc. You argued that "the agency should produce the records in the electronic format in which they are maintained" and that " redactions can be provided separately without altering the native file." 9 ( Emphasis in original.)

However, "[i]t is always presumed that the legislature did not intend to cause absurd, inconvenient, or unjust results." People v. Garcia , 241 Ill. 2d 416, 421 (2011). Requiring public bodies to provide unaltered files and separately provide redactions would defeat the General Assembly' s intent of allowing public bodies to withhold or redact certain types of information pursuant to the exemptions enumerated under section 7 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7 West 2024 )). Therefore , the State's Attorney's Office cannot provide you with a copy of the native, unaltered zip file " because the zip file contains information that the State's Attorney's Office asserts is exempt from disclosure under those section 7 exemptions.10 Although a public body may be required to provide an unaltered or native record when the record contains no exempt information, it is not feasible for a public body to provide an unaltered or native record when the public body applies permissible exemptions.

With regard to the remaining parts of your requests, there is no indication that the State' s Attorney' s Office maintains a record responsive to your request for the "original delivery record from snap inc ," as the zip file was uploaded onto Evidence. com by a detective , as stated in the return on search warrant. The State's Attorney's Office simply had to log into its Evidence.com account to view the file. Further, your request to the City 's police department stated you were seeking a copy of the zip file that was referenced in a certificate of authenticity from Snap Inc. You then quoted language from that certificate in which Snap Inc. certified that a] ttached is a true and correct copy of" the zip file of the data that was requested in the search These files are closed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Chicago address on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, BENJAMIN J. SILVER Supervising Attorney Public Access Bureau 88977 88978 f no fi war pd sao cc: Via electronic mail Mr. Michael Hampleman FOIA Officer City of Springfield 300 South Seventh Street, Room 106 Springfield, Illinois 62701 [email protected] Via electronic mail Mr. Jason P. Young Freedom of Information Officer Sangamon County State's Attorney's Office 200 South Ninth Street, Room 402 Springfield, Illinois 62701 [email protected]