Illinois Supreme Court Holds State's Attorneys Subject to State FOIA

Public Bodies May Charge 15 Cents For Black And White Standard Sized Copies Of FOIA Documents Even If Actual Copying Cost Is Lower

John Doe v. Prosecutor - Tweets and Emails as Public Records subject to FOIA

Twitter related cases are just beginning to appear in Illinois Appeals and Seventh Circuit Cases. We have one of the latest in:

THE CITY OF CHAMPAIGN, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.

LISA MADIGAN, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Illinois; PATRICK WADE; and THE NEWS-GAZETTE, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 4-12-0662, 4-12-0751 cons.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed July 16, 2013.

This case arose from defendant Patrick Wade's July 2011 request pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(e) (West 2010)) for copies of electronic communications sent and received during city council meetings from members of the Champaign city council as well as the mayor of the City of Champaign (collectively, the City). The City partially denied Wade's request, explaining personal communications on privately owned electronic devices are not within the scope of FOIA, even when they relate to city business. Wade then sought administrative review of the City's denial with defendant, the office of the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor. Following that review, the Attorney General issued a binding opinion, finding texts and emails sent or received from a council member's personal electronic device during public meetings, concerning city council business, are by definition public records and thus subject to FOIA. The City sought administrative review in the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Attorney General.

¶ 2 The City appealed, arguing (1) the requested electronic communications were not public records as defined by FOIA; (2) public officials have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their personal communications; (3) the circuit court erred in awarding Wade attorney fees; and (4) the court did not have jurisdiction to decide Wade's counterclaim for injunctive relief. The Court affirmed in part and reverse in part.

After an extended discussion of the ILCS FOIA laws, the Court dismissed appeal No. 4-12-0662 for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the portion of the circuit court's judgment in case No. 4-12-0751 affirming the Public Access Counselor's binding opinion. The Court reversed the part of the court's judgment allowing the counterclaim and awarding attorney fees.

¶ No. 4-12-0662, Dismissed.

¶ No. 4-12-0751, Affirmed in part and reversed in part.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3087819941824928703&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14,188,189,190,191,192&as_ylo=2013&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt