Friday, March 30, 2012

FOIA LAW IN ILLINOIS



    
(5 ILCS 140/11)  (from Ch. 116, par. 211)
    Sec. 11. (a) Any person denied access to inspect or copy
any public record by the head of a public body may file suit
for injunctive or declaratory relief.
    (b) Where the denial is from the head of a public body of
the State, suit may be filed in the circuit court for the
county where the public body has its principal office or where
the person denied access resides.
    (c) Where the denial is from the head of a municipality or
other public body, except as provided in subsection (b) of this
Section, suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county
where the public body is located.
    (d) The circuit court shall have the jurisdiction to enjoin
the public body from withholding public records and to order
the production of any public records improperly withheld from
the person seeking access. If the public body can show that
exceptional circumstances exist, and that the body is
exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the
court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional
time to complete its review of the records.
    (e) On motion of the plaintiff, prior to or after in camera
inspection, the court shall order the public body to provide an
index of the records to which access has been denied. The index
shall include the following:
        (i) A description of the nature or contents of each
    document withheld, or each deletion from a released
    document, provided, however, that the public body shall not
    be required to disclose the information which it asserts is
    exempt; and
        (ii) A statement of the exemption or exemptions claimed
    for each such deletion or withheld document.
    (f) In any action considered by the court, the court shall
consider the matter de novo, and shall conduct such in camera
examination of the requested records as it finds appropriate to
determine if such records or any part thereof may be withheld
under any provision of this Act. The burden shall be on the
public body to establish that its refusal to permit public
inspection or copying is in accordance with the provisions of
this Act. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt
from disclosure has the burden of proving that it is exempt by
clear and convincing evidence.
    (g) In the event of noncompliance with an order of the
court to disclose, the court may enforce its order against any
public official or employee so ordered or primarily responsible
for such noncompliance through the court's contempt powers.
    (h) Except as to causes the court considers to be of
greater importance, proceedings arising under this Section
shall take precedence on the docket over all other causes and
be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable
date and expedited in every way.
    (i) If a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a
copy of a public record substantially prevails in a proceeding
under this Section, the court shall may award such person
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In determining what
amount of attorney's fees is reasonable, the court shall
consider the degree to which the relief obtained relates to the
relief sought. The changes contained in this subsection apply
to an action filed on or after the effective date of this
amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly. If, however, the
court finds that the fundamental purpose of the request was to
further the commercial interests of the requestor, the court
may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if the court
finds that the record or records in question were of clearly
significant interest to the general public and that the public
body lacked any reasonable basis in law for withholding the
record.
    (j) If the court determines that a public body willfully
and intentionally failed to comply with this Act, or otherwise
acted in bad faith, the court shall also impose upon the public
body a civil penalty of not less that $2,500 nor more than
$5,000 for each occurrence. In assessing the civil penalty, the
court shall consider in aggravation or mitigation the budget of
the public body and whether the public body has previously been
assessed penalties for violations of this Act. The changes
contained in this subsection apply to an action filed on or
after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th
General Assembly.
(Source: P.A. 93-466, eff. 1-1-04.) 
 
    (5 ILCS 140/11.5 new)
    Sec. 11.5. Administrative review. A binding opinion issued
by the Attorney General shall be considered a final decision of
an administrative agency, for purposes of administrative
review under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/Art.
III). An action for administrative review of a binding opinion
of the Attorney General shall be commenced in Cook or Sangamon
County. An advisory opinion issued to a public body shall not
be considered a final decision of the Attorney General for
purposes of this Section.

No comments:

Post a Comment