Background
Marshall King, an inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a request under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act to the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office. He sought the first “Racial Profiling Sheet” completed by officer Casey Kohlmeier while assigned to the office’s proactive unit, along with statistics comparing Kohlmeier’s completed sheets with traffic stops leading to arrests. The sheriff’s office responded that it could not grant the request and directed King to the Pontiac Police Department, where Kohlmeier had been employed.
King sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, civil penalties, and costs. After a hearing, the Livingston County circuit court found that no FOIA violation had occurred and dismissed the complaint. It later denied King’s postjudgment motion, finding that the requested document was not in the sheriff’s office’s possession and that, even if it once had been, it would have been lawfully disposed of before King’s request.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed because King did not provide a report of proceedings or an authorized substitute documenting the trial-court hearing. As the appellant, King bore the burden of presenting a sufficiently complete record to establish error. Under the presumption governing an incomplete appellate record, the court treated the trial court’s judgment as legally sound and supported by an adequate factual basis.
The available docket entries stated that the requested records did not exist when King made his request and were not in the sheriff’s office’s possession. Because King failed to demonstrate prima facie reversible error, the court upheld the finding that there was no FOIA violation and, consequently, no willful, intentional, and bad-faith noncompliance supporting civil penalties. A traffic-stop summary form introduced at the hearing did not change the result because the incomplete record did not establish that it was the requested racial-profiling sheet or reveal how the trial court considered it.
Key Takeaways
- A FOIA requester must reasonably identify an existing public record; FOIA generally does not require a public body to create records, data, or statistics it is not otherwise required to maintain.
- An appellant challenging factual findings must supply a sufficiently complete record, including a transcript or proper substitute, or reviewing courts will resolve doubts against the appellant.
- Civil penalties require both a FOIA violation and proof that the public body acted willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how an incomplete appellate record can defeat a FOIA appeal even when the requester points to a document introduced during the litigation. Without a record showing what evidence and arguments the trial court considered, the appellate court will presume the trial court’s factual findings were properly supported.
The decision also distinguishes requests for existing public records from demands that a public body compile statistical information or produce records it does not possess. The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by that rule.