<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Illinois FOIA &amp; OMA Reference: City of Bloomington</title>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/city-of-bloomington/feed.xml" rel="self"/>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/city-of-bloomington/"/>
  <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/city-of-bloomington/</id>
  <updated>2023-10-04T00:00:00Z</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75330/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-75330/</id>
    <updated>2023-10-04T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74512/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-74512/</id>
    <updated>2023-02-06T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2017-pac-46720/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2017-pac-46720/</id>
    <updated>2017-06-06T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Bloomington improperly withheld police disciplinary records under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-39260/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-39260/</id>
    <updated>2016-02-11T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked for 10 years of disciplinary records and citizen complaints for three specific police officers. The City of Bloomington refused to provide some of these records, claiming they were either too old or protected by privacy laws. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the City's refusal to release the records was improper.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Records Relating to a Public Body's Internal Investigation into an Employee's Conduct</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2013-pac-23559/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2013-pac-23559/</id>
    <updated>2013-06-11T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The requester, a journalist, sought police and internal-investigation records concerning an off-duty car accident involving a police department's assistant chief, and the city government withheld the underlying investigative materials, arguing they related to an &quot;adjudication&quot; of a disciplinary case and were therefore exempt. The Public Access Counselor held that an informal internal inquiry that never proceeded to a formal adjudicatory hearing does not qualify as an &quot;adjudication&quot; under the nar</summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
