2018 IL App (3d) 170330
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Charles Bocock, a pretrial detainee at Will County Adult Detention Facility (WCADF), submitted multiple FOIA requests in 2015–2016; the sheriff denied or partially denied those requests, prompting three lawsuits consolidated on appeal.
- Case No. 15-CH-976: Bocock sought records relating to a milk drink served 3/21/15; WCADF responded that the commodity and packaging were gone (in garbage). Bocock conceded packaging was no longer in defendant’s possession.
- Case No. 15-CH-1052: Bocock sought (inter alia) lockdown logs for March 2015, records about another detainee’s (Conway’s) lost/stolen books and compensation, and the jail policies manual; the trial court ordered partial disclosure of lockdown dates/times (but not reasons/durations), withheld Conway records on privacy grounds, and reviewed the policy manual in camera and deemed it largely exempt.
- Case No. 16-MR-2527: Bocock sought records showing which detainees purchased stamps at $0.49 after USPS reduced price to $0.47; WCADF said no such inmate-specific list existed but admitted a report existed showing counts of stamps sold post-rate-drop; Keefe (commissary) affidavit said stamps in stock had been purchased at $0.49 and resold at $0.49 until 6/10/2016. The circuit court dismissed this complaint.
- At a bench trial on civil penalties under FOIA for the first two matters, the court granted directed findings for defendant; the trial transcript is not in the record. The appellate court affirms some rulings, reverses the stamp-records dismissal, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a discarded milk container in facility garbage is a public record and subject to injunctive relief | Bocock: container/packaging in facility garbage are public records under FOIA; court should compel production | Sheriff: used milk container is refuse/garbage, not a public record; searching garbage is unduly burdensome | Moot: Bocock conceded container no longer in defendant’s possession; injunctive relief denied as moot |
| Whether lockdown records (dates/times/durations/reasons) must be fully disclosed | Bocock: requested full lockdown documentation | Sheriff: reasons/durations implicate security exemption under FOIA §7(1)(e) | Affirmed in part: court ordered dates/times produced but permitted withholding of durations/reasons on security grounds because trial record presumed to support exemption |
| Whether Conway detainee records must be disclosed | Bocock: requested Conway-related documents (emails, grievances, compensation records) | Sheriff: disclosure would invade Conway’s privacy; no legitimate interest by Bocock; FOIA §7(1)(c) privacy exemption applies | Affirmed: court properly denied disclosure based on privacy and Bocock’s lack of legitimate interest (presumed supported by record) |
| Whether the WCADF policies and procedures manual must be disclosed (in whole) | Bocock: much of the manual is non-security material and should be disclosed; sheriff failed to prove manual exempt in whole | Sheriff: manual implicates facility security; claimed exemptions; manual reviewed in camera | Affirmed: appellate review hindered by absence of manual in record; trial court’s in camera review and ruling upheld given incomplete record |
| Whether Bocock’s FOIA request for stamp-purchase records was sufficiently described and whether responsive records exist | Bocock: requested documents showing which detainees bought stamps at $0.49 after USPS cut price; receipts/commissary records should exist | Sheriff: request vague/uncertain; no records showing overcharges exist; Keefe affidavit shows stamps sold at 49¢ were purchased at 49¢, so no overcharge records exist | Reversed: request was a document request with sufficient time frame (defendant showed awareness); dismissal improper because plaintiff attached a commissary receipt and record existence cannot be resolved on dismissal; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether civil penalties under FOIA should have been awarded after trial | Bocock: seeks civil penalties for willful noncompliance | Sheriff: trial court granted directed findings for defendant | Affirmed: appellate court affirms denial of civil penalties, presuming adequate evidence supported the trial court’s directed finding given incomplete record |
Key Cases Cited
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (presumption that record supports trial court when reporter’s transcript is absent)
- People v. Blaylock, 202 Ill. 2d 319 (mootness and appellate jurisdiction on abstract questions)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (appellate courts generally avoid advisory opinions)
- Illinois Educ. Ass’n v. Illinois Bd. of Educ., 204 Ill. 2d 456 (public body must comply with FOIA unless a narrow exemption applies)
- People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322 (procedures for submitting materials under seal for appellate review)
- People v. Appelgren, 377 Ill. App. 3d 137 (incomplete record construed against appellant)
- Oldendorf v. General Motors Corp., 322 Ill. App. 3d 825 (standards for section 2-615 motion)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (section 2-615 dismissal—no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist., 207 Ill. 2d 359 (standards for reviewing section 2-619 dismissal)