“Rantoul Fundamentally Misunderstands the Premise of FOIA Cases”

On December 16^th, 2021 Check CU Founder Christopher Hansen filed a lawsuit against the Village of Rantoul alleging violations of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Rantoul unlawfully denied access to copies of complaints against police officers, and continues to do so.

On February 2^nd, 2022 Rantoul Village Attorney David Wesner (of the Champaign, Illinois law firm Evans, Froehlich, Beth, & Chamley) filed a motion to dismiss, making some rather unusual legal assertions.

Civil rights attorney Josh Loevy, for the plaintiff, filed a response to Wesner’s motion last week. Some excerpts from Loevy’s reply are provided here, and both pleadings can be viewed in the entirety at the end of this article.

“Public bodies may not treat exemption language “[a]s some talisman, the mere utterance of which magically casts a spell of secrecy over the documents at issue. Rather, the public body can meet its burden only by providing some objective indicia that the exemption is applicable under the circumstances.” [quoting Ill. Ed. Ass’n. v. Ill. State Bd. of Ed., 204 Ill. 2d 456, 464 (2003)]

…

“Illinois precedent has clearly established that records of complaints against law enforcement, such as those Hansen requested, are not exempted under FOIA.

…

“Rantoul’s attempts to apply rules of statutory construction to FOIA are unnecessary for the reasons already discussed, but they also fail to account for FOIA’s well-known instruction to favor openness of records and narrow construction of exemptions.

…

“Rantoul’s position has no basis in law and is contrary to FOIA’s intent and function. It should be rejected, and Rantoul’s motion should be denied.

…

“Rantoul fundamentally misunderstands the premise of FOIA cases, where public bodies bear the burden of proof. All records “in the custody or possession” of a public body are “presumed” to be open to the public. 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (emphasis added). If a public body wishes to withhold records it bears the burden of proving that it is allowed to.

…

“Rantoul ignores the universal interpretation of FOIA that finds that the records at issue are not subject to 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(n). It cites no authority for this unique position. It simply disagrees with the controlling law.”