FOIADetermination Letter (non-binding)Closed no further actionFOIA Response Process

PAC closes case after Village of Hillside provided body camera footage

The requester sought body camera footage and challenged the Village's procedural handling of a response deadline extension.

Date issued: November 6, 2024
Request number(s): 83592
Public body: Village of Hillside
Statute(s): 5 ILCS 140/3
Outcome: Closed, no further action

Plain-language summary

A citizen requested body camera footage from the Village of Hillside, and the Village extended its response deadline without citing a specific legal reason required by FOIA. The Attorney General's office noted the Village's procedural error but closed the case because the Village eventually provided the requested footage.

Legal question

Whether the Village of Hillside properly extended its time to respond to a FOIA request under 5 ILCS 140/3(e).

Holding

The PAC took no further action because the Village provided the requested records, rendering the dispute moot.

Summary

A requester challenged the Village of Hillside's extension of time to respond to a FOIA request for body camera footage. The PAC determined that while the Village failed to cite a specific statutory reason for the extension, the matter is moot because the Village subsequently provided the requested records.

Issues decided in this letter

Each question the Public Access Bureau decided, with the rule it applied. Extracted automatically from the letter; the source PDF is authoritative.

Violation foundFOIA section 3(e)
Village's extension notice failed to cite statutory reasons
Rule applied: A public body extending its FOIA response time must notify the requester of the enumerated statutory reasons for the extension within five business days.
Authorities cited: Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc. v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2018 IL App (1st) 171846
No determination / resolved
Request for Review mooted by substantive response and disclosure
Rule applied: Disclosure of records responsive to a FOIA request renders moot the claim that a public body failed to provide records.
Authorities cited: Duncan Publishing, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 304 Ill. App. 3d 778, 782 (1999)

body camera footageFOIA response timeextension of timeprocedural compliance

Reading view (598 words)

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 and Mr. Beckwith:

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 2023 Supp.)).

On October 15, 2024, submitted a FOIA request to the Village of Hillside ( Village) seeking body camera footage. On October 22, 2024, the Village informed that his " request requires an extension of time until" October 30, 2024. 1 submitted this Request for Review contesting the extension taken by the Village.

Under section 9.5(a) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) ( West 2023 Supp.)), "[ a] person whose request to inspect or copy a public record is denied by a public body * * * may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor * * * not later than 60 days after the date of the final denial." Section 3(d) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(d) (West 2022)) provides that "[ e]ach public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended The information provided to this office indicates that the Village extended its time to respond to request on October 22, 2024, which was within five business days after its receipt of the request. Although the Village was authorized to unilaterally take that extension, the Village did not cite any of the enumerated reasons in the statute in its correspondence notifying of the extension as required by the plain language of section 3(e) of FOIA. The Village should be mindful of its obligation to do so if it extends the time for responding to FOIA requests in the future. Because this office has received confirmation that on October 28, 2024, the Village substantively responded to the request and provided responsive body camera footage to we will take no further action in this matter. See Duncan Publishing, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 304 Ill. App. 3d 778, 782 (1999) disclosure of records responsive to a FOIA request renders moot the claim that a public body failed to provide records)

This file is closed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Chicago address listed on the first page of this letter.

Very truly yours, MATTHEW C. ROGINA Senior Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 83592 f no fi war mun

Notes from the original PDF (1)

1E-mail from FOIA Officer, Village of Hillside to October 22, 2024)