FOID Letter - 10313 Rfr f Pb Ex Improper Sa

8/7/2019 FOID Letter - 10313 Rfr f Pb Ex Improper Sa

1/8

4E ;

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALSTATE OF ILLINOIS

Lisa MadiganATTORNEYGENERAL

March 1 , 2011Mr. John HostenyLegal CounselIllinois State PoliceJohn_ Hosteny @ i s p . state. i 1 . u sRe: FOIA Request for Review 10313Dear Mr. Hosteny:The Office of the Public Access Cou nselor ( Office) ha s reviewed th e R eq uest fo r Reviewsu bm i tted to this Office by John O' Connor, a reporter fo r the Associated Press ( referred tocollectively a s t h e A P ) a n d t h e r e s p o n s iv e d o c u m e n t s s u b m i t t e d b y t h e Illinois S t a t e P o l i c e .Background

O n S ep tem b er 24 , 2010, Mr. O' Connor subm i tted a Freedom of In fo rm at ion Act (FOIA) requestto the I l l inois State Police ( ISP) seeking the following information regard ing F i rearm Owner' sIdentification (FOID) cards issued b y ISP:

1 . The name of the cardholder;2. T he effective date of each cardholder' s F O I D card ( or the date on w h i ch it expired);

and3 . A ny w e a p o n s classifications, s u c h a s w h e t h e r a cardholder is a p p r o v e d to carry a

certain type ofweapon.Pursuant to Section 9 . 5 ( b) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 9 . 5 ( b), added by Pub l i c Act 9 6 - 542, effectiveJanuary 1 , 2010), a public body that receives a request fo r records and a s s e r t s that t h e records a r ee x e m p t from d isc losure under, inter alia, Section 7 ( 1 ) ( c ) of FOIA, is r eq u ir ed to p rov ide writtennotice of i t s intention to d e n y t h e r e q u e s t in whole o r in part to b o t h t h e r e q u e s t e r a n d t h e PublicAccess Counselor. On October 2 1 , 2010, IS P submitted to the Publ ic Access Counselor a

ISP indicated in its responseletter that it possessesnodocuments responsiveto Item 3.


2/8

Mr. John HostenyMarch I, 2011Page 2

document entitled "Form For Pre-Approval ofUse ofExemption 7( 1 ) ( c) and7( 1 )( f)" (Form forPre- Approval) with respect to the AP' s request.Section 7 ( 1 )( c ) of FOIA ( 5 I LCS 140/ 7( 1 ) ( c) , a s amended by Pub l i c Act 9 6- 542, effectiveJanuary 1 , 2010) exempts from inspection and copying "[ p ] ersonal information contained withinpub l ic records, the disclosure of w hich w ou ld constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writ ing by the indiv idual subjects of theinformation." Id. The exemption defines "[ u ] nwarranted invasion of personal privacy" as " thedisclosure o f information that i s highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person a n d inwhich the subject' s r ight to pr ivacy outweighs any legitimate publ ic interest in ob ta i ning theinformation." Id.

On October 29 , 2010, th e Public Access Counselor responded to IS P ' s Form For Pre- Approvala nd denied ISP ' s request to withhold th e records pu r su ant to Sect ion 7 ( 1 ) ( c).

On November 5 , 2010, the A P fo rw a rd ed to the Public Access Counselor a denial letter itreceived from ISP explaining that ISP was withholding the requested information pursuant toSection 7( 1 )( c) andSection 7( 1 )( d)(vi)ofFOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 7 ( 1 ) ( d)(vi)), which exempts frominspection a n d copying " information that would e n d a n g e r t h e life o r physical s a f e t y of la wenforcementpersonnelorany otherperson." In contrast to Section 7 ( 1 ) ( c ) , a public body is notr eq u i re d to obta in the advance a p p r o v a l of the Publ ic Access Counselor before asserting Section7( 1 ) ( d)( vi).

This O f fi ce ini ti a te d fu r th er rev iew on November 1 6 , 2010. O n December 8 , 2010, this Off icereceived ISP ' s response letter together with a representat ive samp le of the FOID cardinformation that it seeks to withhold? T he Office fo rwa rde d a c o p y of ISP ' s response to the APon December 29, 2010.

Analysis

Under Section 1 . 2 ofFOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 1 . 2), "[ a ] ll records in th e custody or possession of apublicb o d y are presumedto be opento inspectionorcopying." Section 1 . 2 further requires thata ] ny public body that a s s e r t s that a record i s exempt from disclosure h a s t h e burden of provingb y c l e a r a n d convincing e v i d e n c e t h a t it is e x e m p t . " Id . I S P h a s n o t d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d s inquestion are " pub l ic records" to wh ich the provisions of FOIA app ly . Rather, IS P ha s assertedthat the records a re subject to exempt ion from inspection or production u nd er S ec tio n 7 .Specifically, I S P a s s e r t s t h a t d i s c lo s u r e of t h e n a m e a n d expiration d a t e would result in a clearlyunwarranted invasion of the personal p r ivacy of the cardho lders and endanger their lives orphysical safety.

2 The do cume n t tha t IS P seeks to withhold is entit led" Illinois State Pol ice Informa t ion& Technology C o m m a n dF O LD C a rd Holders." The document includes the na me of th e FOLD card owner, the expirat ion date of the card, theFOLD card nu mb er a nd the c ard owner ' s h o m e address a nd telephone nu mb er . IS P m a y redact the h o m e addressand telephone n u m b er p u rs ua n t to Section 7 ( 1 )( b) of F O I A ( 5 ILCS 140/ 7 ( 1 ) ( b) ) which exempts from disclosurepr ivate information. The FOLD ca rd number, however, is not a unique identifier under Section 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) and must bedisclosed to theAP as ISP has notpresenteda basis forwithholding the cardnumber.


3/8

Mr. John HostenyMarch 1 , 2011Page 3

Section 7( 1)( c)

T h e first s t e p of t h e a n a l y s i s u n d e r S e c t io n 7 ( 1 ) ( c ) is t o d e t e r m i n e if t h e r e q u e s te d information ishighly p e r s o n a l o r i t s d i s c l o s u r e w o u l d b e o b j e c t i o n a b l e t o a r e a s o n a b le p e rs o n . Only w h e n t h ein form a t ion is found to be highly personal or its d isc losure ob jec tionab le to a reasonab l e persond o e s t h e public body n e e d to consider t h e s e c o n d s t e p in t h e analysis a n d determine whether " t h es u b j e c t ' s right t o privacy outweighs a n y legitimate public i n t e r e s t in obtaining t h e information."T he Illinois appel la te courts have no t yet considered whether th e disc losure of th e nam e s ofind iv idua ls registered to ow n f i rearms constitutes an invasion of pr ivacy under Section 7 ( 1 ) ( c).Illinois courts have recognized, however, that because Illinois' F O I A statute is ba sed on theFederal FOIA statute, decisions construing t h e latter, while no t controlling, m ay provide helpfula n d relevant precedents in construing t h e S ta te Act. Ma rgol isv . Directors, I l l inois Dep. ofR e v e n u e , 1 8 0 Ill.A p p . 3 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 7 , appeal denied, 1 2 6 I 1 1 . 2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 8 9 ) .Under the Federal F O I A , courts have concluded that the disclosure of the names of handgunpurchasers does no t a m o un t to an invasion of pr ivacy. Center to Prevent Handgun Violence v.U.S . Department of Treasury, 9 8 1 F . S u p p . 2 0 , 2 4 ( D. D . C . 1 9 9 7 ) ; City of Chicago v . United S t a t e sD e p a r t m e n t of T r e a s u r y , 2 8 7 F . 3 d 6 2 8 ( 7 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) opinion v a c a t e d o n o t h e r grounds, 4 2 3F . 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 7 9 - 8 0 ( 7 t h Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( City of Chicago I).3 In City of Chicago I, t h e City submitted aF O I A request to the United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcoho l Tobacco andF i r e a r m s ( ATF) s e e k i n g r e c o rd s o n f i r e a r m t r a c e s a n d multiple s a l e s b o th n a t io n w id e a n d i nChicago from 1 9 9 2 to the present. City ofChicago I, 287 F . 3 d a t 632. A T F p a r tia lly denied t h erequest a nd withheld the na m es a nd a ddresses of manufacturers, dealers, purchasersa ndpossessors from the Trace Database and the Mult ip le S a l e s Database under Sections ( B)( 6) , 7 ( A )and 7( C) ofthe Federal FOIA ( 5 U.S . C. 552 ( B)( 6) , ( B)( 7)( A) and (B)(7)( C)). Id. T he Citys u b s e q u e n t l y filed s u i t a g a i n s t t h e ATF s e e k i n g d i s c l o s u r e of t h e information. Cityof C h i c a g o I,287 F . 3d at 636.ATF argued th a t d i sc lo su r e of the information would interfere with act ive law enforcementproceedings, in t imidate witnesses and constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal pr i vacy fo rhandgun purchasers. Id. With reg a rd to whether the individual n a m e s a n d a d d re ss es in th er ec or ds w er e protected from d isc lo su re u nd er S ec tio n ( B)( 6) of the F ed era l F O IA becausedisclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion o f personal privacy, the Court held:

M n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e City s e e k s r e c o r d s pertaining to g u n b u y e r s a n d s e l l e r s . It iswell- established that one does no t possess a ny pr ivacy interest in the purchase of af i rearm. S e e , e . g. , C tr . t o Prevent Handgun Violence v . United S t a t e s Dept. of Treasury,981 F. S u p p . 20, 23 ( D.D.C. 1997). Firearms manufacturers, dealers and purchasers are

3 T h e Court ultimately v a c a t e d it s dec ision in City of Chicago I, 2 8 7 F . 3 d 6 2 8 , b e c a u s e C o n g re s s e n a c t e d newl e g i s l a t i o n explicitly m a k i n g t h e d a t a a t i s s u e in t h e FOIA r e q u e s t " i m m u n e f r o m l e g a l p r o c e s s . " C i t y of C h i c a g o v .United S t a t e s Department of T r e a s u r y , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 7 9 - 8 0 ( 7 t h Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) . I nreviewing th e n e w legislation, th eCourt did no t change its p r ev io us a n a lysi s th at Federal F O R required t h e disclosure of th e d a ta , bu t h eld th atCongress' enactment " amount [ e d ] to a change in substantive FOIA la w in tha t it exem pts from disclosure datapreviously availableto thepublicunderFOIA." Id.at781.


4/8


on n otice th at records of their t ransact ions a re not confidential a nd a re subject tor e g u la t o r y i n s p e c t io n . U n i te dS t a t e s v . B i s w e l l , 4 0 6 U. S . 3 1 1 , 3 1 6 , 9 2 S . C t . 1 5 9 3 , 3 2L. E d. 2 d 8 7 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ( holding that when author ized by the G un Control Act , a warrantlessinspectionofagundealer' s storeroomdoes notviolatethe Fourth Amendment). Unlikethe Washington Post C o. case, the names a n d a dd resses requested here are not of such asensitive nature that their disclosure could ha rm or em b a rr ass th e i nd i v id u a l . ( C i ty ofChicagoI,287 F.3d 628, 636.)

T he Cour t next considered whether the records were exempt under Section ( B )( 7 ) ( C ) of FederalFOIA b e c a u s e disclosure " could reasonably b e expected to constitute a n unwarranted invasion o fpersonalprivacy.' City of C h i c a g o I,2 8 7 F . 3 d a t 6 3 6 ( q u o t i n g 5 U. S . C . S e c t i o n 5 5 2 ( B ) ( 7 ) ( C ) ) .In examining first whether a privacy interest would b e implicated by t h e r e l e a s e o f the records,the Court concluded:

We a g r e e with the district court that the re lease of the requested n a m e s and addressesd o e s n o t r a i s e a n y le g i tim a t e privacy c o n c e r n s b e c a u s e t h e p u r c h a s e of a firearm is n o t aprivate transaction. S e e , e . g ., Ctr. T o Prevent Handgun V i o l e n c e , 9 8 1 F . S u p p . a t 2 3 - 2 4 .T he G un Control Act requires that a t ransact ion for the sale of a f i rearm be recorded a nde v e r y d e a l e r is required to m a k e b u s in e s s r e c o rd s available t o investigation. Again, e v e r ypurchaser of a f i rearm is on n o ti ce th a t their n a m e a n d a d d ress m u s t be repor te d to statea nd local authorities a nd ATF. Id; Biswell, 4 06 U.S . a t 316, 9 2 S . C t. 1593. A s a result,there c a n b e n o expectation o f p r iv acy in the requested n a m e s and a d d r e s s e s . ( City o fChicago 1, 287 F . 3d at 637.)

T he C o u r t then we nt on to find that even ifa minimal privacy interest existed with regard todisclosure of the in form at ion, that interest w a s substantially o u tw e ig h ed b y the pub l ic ' s interestin disclosure:

Inherent in the City' s request fo r records i s the public' s interest in A T F ' s performance o fits statutory duties of tracking, investigating a n d prosecuting i l legal g u n trafficking, a swel as determiningwhetherstricterregulationoffirearms is necessary.... Disclosureoft h e r e c o r d s s o u g h t b y t h e City wil l s h e d l ight o n ATF' s efficiency in performing i t s d u t ie sand directly serve F O I A ' s purpose in keeping the activit ies of government agencies opento t h e s h a rp e y e of public scrutiny. (City of Chicago I,2 8 7 F . 3 d a t 6 3 7 . )I l l inois la w also recognizes that disclosure of a name furnished in a license appl icat ion does notamount to a n invasion of p e r s o n a l privacy. S c h e s s l e r v . Department of Conservation, 2 5 6Ill.App.3d 198 (4thDist. 1994). In Schessler, the requester sought information related toappl icat ions fo r a l ive pigeon shoot. Specif ical ly, the requester sought ( 1 ) the name of the persono r t h e organization sponsoring t h e e v e n t , ( 2 ) t h e d a t e of t h e p r o p o s e d pigeon s h o o t , ( 3 ) t h elocation of the event, and ( 4 ) the name of the owner of the property on which the pigeon shootwould b e held. S c h e s s l e r , 2 5 6 I 1 1 . App . 3 d a t 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 . T h eDepartment withheld t h e informationon the basis that disclosure "would constitute a clearly un w a rr a nted in v a sio n of personalprivacy." Id a t 2 0 0 . T h eCourt c o n c lu d e d t h a t d is c lo s u re of t h e informa tion would n o t amount t oaclearlyunwarrantedinvasionofpersonalprivacy. Idat201.


5/8


I S P c o n t e n d s that t h e decision t o ow n a firearm i s a p e r s o n a l decision a n d that disclosure of t h en a me s of FOID cardholders a nd the expiration date of the c ard s a m o u nts to a n u nwar r an t e dinvasion ofpersonal privacy pursuantto Section 7( 1 )( c). In support of its argument, ISP citesMager v.Michigan State Police, 460 Mich. 134 ( Mich. 1999). In Mager, a citizen sought thenames, addresses and telephone numbers of people w ho ha d been issued a pistol safetycertificate. Mager , 460 Mich. a t 1 3 6 . The Court concluded that gun ownership is information ofa " p e r s o n a l n a t u re " a n d that " d i s c l o s u r e of t h i s information would " clearly constitute a n invasionofpersonal pr ivacy." Mager , 460 Mich . a t 1 4 6 - 147.H e r e , unlike Mager , h o m e a d d r e s s e s a n d t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r s a r e specifically p r o t e c t e d fromdisc losure under Sect ion 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of F O IA ( 5 ILCS 1 4 0 / 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) ) , which exempts from inspectiona n d c o p y i n g " p r iv a t e i n f o r m a t i o n " p u r s u a n t t o S e c t io n ( 2 ( c - 5 ) ) of FOIA ( 5 I L C S 1 4 0 / 2 ( c - 5 ) ) . T h eFOID card information that the A P seeks is limited to the n a m es of FOID cardho lders a nd theexpiration d a t e of e a c h c a r d . In reviewing t h e r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s a m p le supplied t o t h i s Office byISP, we conclude that the request a nd the responsive records are distinct from the records soughtin Mager.The Firearm Owners Identification Card ActUnder the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/ 1 et seq.) ( FOID Card Act),w h e n a p p l y i n g for a F O I D c a r d , a n i n d i v i d u a l m u s t p r o v i d e IS P with i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t will b eentered into a database. The FOID Card A ct s e t s forth the requirements that the firearm owner,ISP, and local la w enforcement agencies must follow with regard to f irea rm ownersh ip .Section 1 of th e FOID Card Act( 430 ILCS 6 5 / 1 ) provides:

It is h e r e b y declared a s a matter of legislative determination tha t in order t o promotea nd protect the health, safety and welfa re of the publ ic , it i s necessary a nd in the publ icinterest to prov ide a system of identi fying p ersons w ho a re not qualified to acqu i re orpossess f i rearms, firearm ammuni t ion, stun guns, a nd tasers within the State ofIllinoisb y t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a s y s t e m of F i r e a r m O w n e r ' s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n C a r d s , t h e r e b yestablishing a practical a n d workable system by w hich la w enforcement au thorities willb e a f f o r d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o identify t h o s e p e rs o n s w h o a r e p r o h i b i t e d b y S e c t i o n 2 4 - 3 . 1of the " Cr im ina l Code of 1 9 6 1 , " a s amended, from acquir ing or possessing f i rearms a n dfirea r m a m m u nitio n a nd w ho a re prohibited by this Act fro m a c q uirin g stun guns andtasers. 430 ILCS 6 5 / 1 ( Emphasis added.)

Section 4 of the FOID Card A ct ( 430 ILCS 65 /4 ) requires an appl icant to submit in format ion toI S P t h a t it w i l l r e l y u p o n in d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e a p p l i c a n t i s e l i g i b l e to o w n a f i r e a r m . 44 Under Section 4 , a n applicant must submit information concerning whether they a r e over 2 1 ; if they a r e under 2 1 ,whether they h a v e parental consent; whether they h a v e b e e n convicted of a misdemeanor, adjudicated a s ad e l in q u e n t o r c o n v ic te d of a f e l o n y ; w h e t h e r t h e y a re a d d ic te d to n a r c o tic s ; w h e t h e r t h e y a re lawfully in t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s ; whether they h a v e b e e n in a mental institution in th e p a s t 5 y e a r s ; whether they a r e mentally r e t a r d e d ; a n dwhetherthey have been convictedofbattery, assaultordomestic battery.


6/8


In its letter, ISP argues that:T he clear intent of Sect ion 65/ 1 w a s to allow law enforcem ent officers th e opportunity toidentify t h o s e individuals w h o , for v a r i o u s r e a s o n s , s h o u l d b e prohibited from p o s s e s s i n gf i rearms, fir ea r m a m m u n itio n, stun guns and/ or tasers, a nd conversely, ident i fy those w howould b e allowed t o legally qual ify for a FOID Card a n d p o s s e s s s u c h devices. It i s la wenforcement officers, not the general publ ic , w ho a re charged with the duty to p r o tec t theh e a l t h , s a f e t y , a n d welfare of t h e g e n e r a l public under Section 6 5 / 1 . T h e PAC' s p r e -authorization determination letter asserts that th e public' s interest in obtaining thisin format ion outweighs an ind iv idual ' s r ight to pr i vacy based o n S ec tio n 65 / 1 , but clearlythe opposite is true. Section 6 5 / 1 inherently protects an indiv idual ' s r ight to pr ivacy byonly al lowing t h e r e le a s e of this information t o la w enforcement officers a s part of theirlegitimate law enforcement duties.

Contrary to I S P ' s argument, there i s n o indication in t h e FOID Card A ct that the n a m e of t h ecardholder and the expirat ion d ate w a s intended to be kept confidentia l a nd ava i lable only to la wenforcem ent. IS P further argues that because a n app l i can t is r eq u ir ed to s u b m i t informationa b o u t his or her m e n t a l health a nd m e d i c a l conditions, disclosure of th e n a m e s of cardholderswou ld constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal pr ivacy. T he fact that a license app l icantm u s t s u b m i t personal information as par t of the app l i ca t ion , however , does not create a privacyinterest in the l icense itself. Moreover , the A P d id n ot r eq u est mental hea lth or med ica linformation a nd ISP ' s responsive d o cu m e nts d o not include this type of information. Individualschoose to a p p ly fo r a FO ID ca rd a nd , a s pa r t of the process, a re aware that they are submitt ingdetailed information to ISP.

A s the cour t in City ofC h i c a g o Inoted:T he G un Contro l Act requ i re s tha t a transaction for the sale of a f i rearm be recorded a ndt h a t e v e r y d e a le r is required t o m a k e b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s available to investigation. Again,e v e ry p u rc h a s e r of a firearm is o n n o t i c e t h a t their n a m e a n d a d d r e s s m u s t b e r e p o r t e d t osta te a nd l oc a l a u t ho r iti es a nd ATE. As a result, there ca n be no expectat ion of privacyin the requested n am e s a nd addresses. City ofChicago I,28 7 F . 3d 6 28 , 637 .

Based on this analysis, disclosure of the names of FOID cardholders and the expiration date ofthe FOID card cannot be character ized a s highly personal or object ionable to th e rea so na b leperson. Moreover , just a s in the A T F records a t issue in City of C h i c a g o I, the Genera lA s s e m b l y h a s clearly d e te rm i n e d t h a t it is in t h e public i n t e r e s t t o provide a s y s t e m foridentifying t h o s e w h o a r e qualified t o a c q u i r e o r p o s s e s s f i r e a r m s through t h e i s s u a n c e of FOIDcards. The publ ic , therefore, h a s a legit imate interest in ISP' s enforcement of the FOID Card Act .If, fo r example , a FO ID cardholder becomes inel igible u n der S ec tio n 4 or if that i nd i v idua lfalsif ied his or her appl icat ion, there exists a leg i t imate pub l i c interest in knowing whether ISP' sd a t a b a s e c o n t i n u e s t o authorize that individual to maintain a FOID c a r d . 5 Therefore, e v e n if5 Section 8 of t h e FOID Card Act( 430, ILCS 6 5 / 8 ) s e t s forth t h e requirements that would disqual ify a cardholder.T he public ha s a legitimate i n te res t i n assessing whether these provisions a re effective a nd whether a c a r d ho ld e r w h ois disqualified by statute to owna firearmwillbe notedas suchin ISP' s database.


7/8


disclosure of the names a nd exp i rat ion of FOID card owners d id constitute a n unwar ran tedi n v a s i o n of p e r s o n a l privacy, t h is f a c t is o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e public i n t e r e s t t h a t e x is t s in e n s u r i n gthe integrity of ISP' s database.F i n a l l y , I S P r e l i e s o n tw o r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c is io n s th a t a d d r e s s e d th e is su eof a n individual ' s r ight to p o s s e s s a firearm pursuant to the S e c o n d Amendment o f the UnitedS t a t e s Constitution. NeitherDistrict of Columbia v . Heller, 5 5 4 U. S . 5 7 0 , 1 2 8 S . Ct. 2 7 8 32008), norMcDonaldv.City ofChicago, _ U.S _ , 13 0 S . Ct.3020 ( 2010), however, is applicablehere. In Heller, the Court held tha t the Second Amendment protected a n individual ' s r ight top o s s e s s a f i rearm. Heller, 554 U. S . at 5 9 5 , 1 2 8 S . Ct., 2799. Further, McDona ld held that theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Am endm ent incorporated the Second Amendment r ightfound in Heller. McDonaldv . City ofChicago, 1 3 0 S . Ct. a t 3050. T h e s e decisions a d d r e s s e d theconstitutionality of a n individual' s right t o o w n a f i r e a r m a n d n o t w h e t h e r p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e ofthe names of individuals who p o s s e s s a FOID card amounts to a n invasion of personal privacy.Section 7( 1 )( d)( vi)ISP a l s o argues that the names of the FOID cardholders and the expiration d a t e s on the cards a r eexempt from d isc losure under Section 7 ( 1 ) ( d)( v i) because releasing this in format ion woulde ndange r the life of individuals both n a m ed a nd not n a m ed in the records.I n City of C h i c a g o I, t h e A TF a r g u e d t h a t r e l e a s e of t h e r e c o r d s might t h r e a t e n t h e s a f e t y of a nindividual or interfere with a la w enforcement investigation. City ofChicago I,28 7 F . 3d a t 634.The Court concluded that A T F ' s assertion that disclosure o f t h e s e records would endanger livesor interfere with an investigation wa s speculative, and that a s a government agency, A T F wasreq uired to show b eyond mere conclusory statements how disclosure of such records wouldinterfere with a p e n d i n g la w enforcement p r o c e e d i n g . City of Chicago I,2 8 7 F . 3 d a t 6 3 5 .ISP a rg ues tha t d isclosure of the names of individuals w ho a r e FOID cardholders wouldendanger their lives by making them targets of a home invasion. I S P a l s o contends thatdisclosure of these documents could lead a third party to discover who does no t ow n a handgunb y t h e o m i s s i o n of a n a m e . Like t h e ATF' s a r g u m e n t s in City of C h i c a g o I, I S P ' s a r g u m e n t s a r epurely s p e c u l a t i v e . Additionally, I S P ' s a r g u m e n t s a r e e v e n l e s s compelling t h a n t h e a r g u m e n t sr e je c te d in City of C h i c a g o I b e c a u s e t h e a d d re s s e s a n d t e le p h o n e n u m b e r s of FOID c a r d h o l d e r sa n d appl icants must b e withheld by ISP pursuant to Section 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of F O I A .I S P a l s o points t o a previously i s s u e d determination l e t t e r from t h i s Office, No. 2 0 1 0 PA C 8 7 2 7 .I n that matter , I S P submitted a Form fo r P r e - Approva l seeking to withhold certain informationpursuant to Section 7( 1) ( c). The requester was an arrestee who sought the arrest reports andF O ID in fo rm a tion about his alleged vict im. This Office did no t analyze the Form fo r Pre-Approval pursuant to Section 7( 1 )( d)(vi). Instead, the Office determined that disclosure ofinformation r e g a r d i n g o w n e r s h i p o r r e g i s t r a t i o n of a firearm d id n o t a m o u n t t o a n i n v a s i o n ofpr ivacy under Section 7 ( 1 ) ( c ) .I S P ' s suggestion that this example of a n a r r e s t e e s e e k i n g FOID c a r d information concerning hisalleged victimestablishes that disclosure mght endanger the lives of individuals and law


8/8


enforcement officers in response to this F O I A request is speculative and conclusory. In its F ormfor Pre- Approval for 2010 PAC 8 7 2 7 , IS P p resen ted n o specif ic evidence in suppo r t of itsassertion that disclosure of this information would result in a n unwarranted invasion of persona lp r i v a c y o r e n d a n g e r t h e l i f e a n d s a f e t y of t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m . 6 T h e fa c ts p r e s e n t e d in N o . 2 0 1 0P A C 8 7 2 7 do not c hange ou r analysis of Sect ion 7 ( 1 ) ( c) or Sect ion 7 ( 1 ) ( d)( vi) in th e context ofthis FOIA request. IS P ha s offered no detai ls to su p p ort its a r g u m e nt th a t d isc lo su re of thisin format ion to the A P would result in a safety threat to any ind iv idual . ISP' s hypotheticalscenarios regard ing other possible circumstances in which FOIA might b e u s e d a s a tool to s e e kinformation a bo ut FOID cardho lders do n o t sa tisf y th e clear a nd convincing evidence standardrequired under Section 1 . 2 a s to theAP' s FOIA request.Findings and ConclusionsAfter full review a nd consideration, this Office concludes that IS P ha s not met its burden withreg a rd to Sect ion 7 ( 1 ) ( c) a nd Sect ion 7 ( 1 ) ( d)( vi) a nd m u s t d is clo se the requested d o cu m e n ts tothe AP. Should you have any questions, please contact meat ( 312) 814- 5383. Thiscorrespondence shall serve to close this file.

Sincerely,

Matthew C. RoginaAssistant Public Access Counselor

cc: Mr. John O' Connorjoconnor@ a p . orgSgt . Kelly WalterIllinois State PoliceKelly_Wal te r@isp . state. il.usTroope r Kerry SuttonFreedom of Information Act OfficerIllinois State PoliceKerry_S utton @ i sp. state. il.us

6 I n its Form fo r Pre-Approval fo r N o . 2010 P A C 872 7 , IS P stated that" releasing the information w o u l d disclose a nind iv idual ' s persona l decision whether to app ly fo r a FOLD card, or s e e k to p o s s e s s or firearm or firearmammunition in Illinois. Recent U.S . Supreme Court decisions have upheld an individual' s personal right to own orpossess f irearm s under the Second Amendment. T he decision to exerc ise a n individual' s right under th e S ec on dAme ndme nt is a personal matter, and each cardholder' s rightto pr i vacy outweighs any interest in disclosing thisinformation to thepublic."

Documents

FOID Letter - 10313 Rfr f Pb Ex Improper Sa