Court Rules in Favor of Sheriff's Office in FOIA Challenge and more...

Court Rules in Favor of Sheriff's Office in FOIA Challenge

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a sheriff's office in a lawsuit challenging the sheriff office's response to a FOIA request submitted by an arrestee who had been detained in county jail. Staake v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Office.

Plaintiff was arrested, booked, and detained in a county jail on various criminal charges. While in county jail, plaintiff allegedly made statements to others over the jail's recorded phone lines about an order of protection his wife had against him as well as the criminal offenses that led to his arrest. Plaintiff filed multiple FOIA requests with the sheriff's office asking for those recordings, but the requests were denied by the sheriff's office. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the sheriff's office claiming it violated FOIA in denying his FOIA request. The trial court ruled in favor of the sheriff's office, agreeing with the sheriff's office that the records were exempt from FOIA because plaintiff failed to establish how those recordings were "relevant" to his pending or potential claims or cases.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reviewed section 7(1)(e-10) of FOIA, which exempts from FOIA the following:

(e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim.

The Appellate Court analyzed whether Section 7(1)(e-10) applied to the plaintiff's FOIA request and determined that it did, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the requested records "may be relevant" to any pending or potential case or claim. Because he did not meet his burden, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of the sheriff's office.

In the Zone: Court Finds No Procedural Due Process Violation in Zoning Challenge

The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued an opinion in a zoning challenge overturning a trial court's ruling that a city's zoning decision violated a neighboring property owner's procedural due process rights. Clark v. City of Galena.

In 2022, a developer filed an application requesting annexation and zoning approvals for a proposed mixed-use development on 80 acres of land in and adjacent to the city. The project included rental cottages, vineyard and winery, gardens, etc. The city's zoning board held a public hearing where the developer presented its application, and neighboring property owners and other interested parties spoke in opposition to the project. After closing the public hearing, the zoning board voted and sent its recommendation to the city council. The city council considered the zoning board's recommendation, and also allowed citizens to provide public comment on the project before voting in favor of both the proposed annexation and zoning approvals for the project. A few months later, the developer proposed amendments to the project, including annexation of additional property, and another zoning board hearing and city council meeting were held, and citizens were again allowed to provide testimony and public comment. The requested zoning changes and annexation of additional territory were approved by the city council.

A neighboring property owner who opposed the project filed a lawsuit against the city and developer to challenge the city's zoning decisions. She claimed that the zoning decisions violated various constitutional rights, including her procedural due process rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the city and developer on all counts except for the neighbor's claim that her procedural due process rights were violated.

The city and developer appealed, and the Appellate Court overturned the trial court's ruling in favor of the neighbor on her procedural due process claims. The Appellate Court noted that zoning decisions are presumed valid, and that the neighbor had the burden to overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the Appellate Court reviewed the process that was held by the city, including the two public hearings held by the zoning board where citizens were allowed to, and did in fact, speak about the project, including the neighbor who filed the lawsuit, and the multiple city council meetings on the project where the city council also allowed public comment, in which the neighbor participated as did other interested citizens. The Court found that both the zoning board and city council discussed the project in detail during that process, and went through the criteria for granting relief, before voting on the project.

The Appellate Court rejected the trial court's determination that the city's procedure deprived the neighbor of her procedural due process rights because the city failed to proactively offer her an opportunity to cross-examine the developer's witnesses. The Appellate Court held that the neighbor had an unlimited opportunity to pose questions about the project, and that she had not made a request to directly cross-examine the developer's witnesses, nor did the city deny such a request, so there was no deprivation of her due process rights.

In sum, the Appellate Court found that the city's process was "thorough and allowed an interchange of evidence and opinions regarding the project," and that the city has an interest in an efficient process. The Court further found that the city was not required to proactively offer an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses without a request by a citizen, as that would impose an additional burden for little benefit given the process provided in this case. As a result, the Court held that the neighbor failed to meet her burden to provide by clear and convincing evidence that her procedural due process rights were violated by the city's approval of the project. The Court also noted that the neighbor's failure to raise an objection to the city's process at the hearing resulted in a forfeiture of that issue in court.

Local Government Law Institute 2025

It's that time of year for all of my local government lawyer readers and friends to register for this year's Local Government Law Institute hosted by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE). This year's conference will be held on Friday, December 5, 2025, from 8:55 to 3:45 pm. at the UBS Center in Chicago, with a cocktail reception to follow. The conference will be offered by webcast as well.

As always, the agenda for this annual conference is packed with educational and informational (and often entertaining) local government law topics, including the following "can't miss" sessions:

Case Law and Legislative Update
Development and Economic Incentives
The First Amendment & Public Forum Spaces
Federalism
Local Government Attorney's Guide to What Not to Do in Employment Law
Intergovernmental Cooperation: How to Work Together and Tips for Drafting IGAs
Ethical Issues and AI in Local Government Law

More information about this year's conference and registration can be found on IICLE's website here.

Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

Both houses of the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 243 that amends the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act in a number of ways. The bill (which passed October 15, 2025) now goes to the Governor for his signature. If signed by the Governor, the bill states it would become effective on January 1, 2026.

1. Meetings of Public Bodies Prohibited on Election Day

The bill would amend the OMA to prohibit public bodies from holding or scheduling a regular or special meeting on the day of a general, consolidated, or primary election.

2. Military Service as a Reason to Attend Meeting Remotely

The bill would also amend the OMA to add language allowing a member of a public body to attend a meeting remotely for the member's "performance of active military duty as a service member." Note that the bill did not change the requirement that a quorum of the public body be physically present to conduct a meeting.

3. Township OMA Training Option

The bill would further amend the OMA to allow members of township boards to obtain the required OMA training through a course sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents townships created under the Township Code. This new provision is similar to provisions allowing members of municipal, school district, park district, fire protection district, soil and water conservation district, and drainage district public bodies to take training courses offered by organizations that represent those bodies rather than the electronic training offered by the Attorney General's office.

4. Immunity for Compliance with PAC Opinion

The bill would also amend provisions relating to the Public Access Counselor's office to clarify that officers and employees of a public body are immune from liability if they disclose records in accordance with an opinion of the PAC office.

5. Section 4 FOIA Posting Requirements

Section 4 of FOIA currently requires public bodies to post certain information (description of the public body and its subdivisions, total operating budget, offices, number of employees, members of advisory bodies, FOIA procedures, etc.) at its administrative offices. This bill would amend section 4 to require posting only on the public body's website rather than at the administrative offices (unless the public body has no website, in which case the information must be posted at the administrative offices).

6. Junk Mail Excluded from FOIA Definition of Public Records

The bill would amend the FOIA to clarify that public records for purposes of FOIA expressly excludes "junk mail." Junk mail is defined as unsolicited commercial mail or email sent to a public body and not responded to by an official, employee, or agent of the public body.

7. Electronic FOIA Submissions Must Be in Body of Submission

The bill would amend FOIA to require that electronic FOIA requests include the request in the body of the electronic submission, rather than as an attachment or hyperlink, for cybersecurity reasons. If a public body receives an attachment or hyperlink request, it must notify the requester of the new requirement that requests must be in the body of the submission.

8. Verification that FOIA Requester is a Person

The bill would amend FOIA to allow a public body that has a reasonable belief that a request was not submitted by a person to require the requester to verify orally or in writing that the requester is a person. The deadline for response would be tolled until the requester verifies that he or she is a person and if the requester fails to do so, the public body can deny the request.

9. New FOIA Exemptions

The bill would also amend FOIA to add a couple of new exemptions for records held by a criminal justice agency and documents deemed sensitive by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note that this bill has not yet been enacted into law - it needs the Governor's signature to become effective.

Homeowner Not Entitled to Compensation for Property Damage in Search of Home

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a homeowner's Fifth Amendment "takings" claim lawsuit brought against a city and county seeking compensation for damages caused by law enforcement officers who entered her home pursuant to a search warrant to search for a fugitive they incorrectly believed was inside the home. Hadley v. City of South Bend, Ind.

In 2022, law enforcement believed that a murder suspect was residing in a South Bend home based on social media posts and the suspect's IP address, and obtained a search warrant to search the home for the suspect. Although the homeowner informed the officers that she had no connection with, or knowledge of, the suspect, officers forcefully entered her home, breaking windows, launching 30 cannisters of tear gas, wrecking internal security cameras, punching holes in walls, ransacking furniture and a closet, and tearing down a wall panel and fan. The suspect was not found in the home.

When the city and county refused to reimburse the homeowner for the damages to her home, she filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city and county, claiming that law enforcement violated the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it damaged her property and that she was owed $16,000 in "just compensation." The district court dismissed her case, and she appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment did not entitle her to compensation, holding that the government is not obligated to compensate for property damage resulting from law enforcement officers executing a lawful search warrant. Because the warrant was lawful, the Seventh Circuit held that her lawsuit against the city and county was properly dismissed as she was not entitled to compensation for the property damages.

Municipal Minute