transparency with respect to the kind of data that the national association is seeking here for you says government documents should be available to members of the public so that they can fulfill their duty to discuss the issues and make informed political judgments and thereby ensure that the activities of government are truly in the public interest the issue for public discussion here is the legitima a finding made in a legislatively mandated study conducted by the chicago police and other police agencies and finding that the status quo with respect to eye exemptions were insufficient they acknowledge that if you get past this question which they now present as their their first argument regarding the burden of redacting and producing the documents we've asked for that in fact there has to be a really and for further consideration of the claim they make with with with different and better support if they could do it people power put in to getting that information right well that's that's right but you have not really caught me out yeah that's life yeah this you're looking for you're looking it looks like what you're looking for point because i know you're looking for training in what went on to put the study together right now granted there has been provided to us so that's not an issue what what the record reflects is that the researchers who did the study and derive the conclusions that they did hear some but not were all of the information relating to the circumstances of the identification is that they goes to there is a small universe of data in the possession of the researchers some of which the police have agreed to provide to us other portions of that data from open cases state object to there is additional data that the researchers never hear that is in the possession of the police departments let me try and ok so we've got a border right which would ease their burden i can't answer you whether the researchers payout the data that they also have been know was there some data that the researchers at some point headed where they still haven't i don't know that the lamps the data that the police hand in addition know and we also seek this because it's important there is information that the researchers never have that has remained in the possession of the police t part of the analysis i would suspect that if we went to the researchers and i'll tell you we did of i would suspect if we haven't but the researchers would have said our principle with respect to this matter has been kept secret and our researchers can't have an opportunity to examine that and and address the validity of the findings that have been soaked how did as a result of the st as i said a moment ago i think that if we had made such an effort we obviously would have been rebuffed because the researchers would have told us it's up to this police department whether you get it or not these are police documents they do the wrong to the r is contained in any of those cases that the requestor of public information has an obligation to exhaust other avenues before seeking the information just clearly government information from the relevant government agency instead the analysis here is how much effort is going to be imposed on that government in order to comply with the for you request got everything that the researchers and once had we have no reason to believe that they still have it if we got everything that they once had we still wouldn't have the information that we need in order to accomplish the you she should rule in your favor that you are entitled to see the redacted closed files and not correct them yes that's correct to a limit to a certain extent and what we were going to do is understand the universe of what you're looking for and see how reasonable we can all be about ok now here's here's what we want to see and it's going to be a long winded way of getting to the answer to your question jessica what what we want to see is the perpetrator has witness x previously seen a photograph of the person the police deem to be the perpetrator suspect of being the perpetrator has witness x a previous acquaintanceship with the suspected person what is the history of this witness's opportunities to observe this person that led up to the vet the den afic ation procedure which is included in the study now to get to your question with respect to closed cases what we received was the slice of information that the researchers once had namely a further one filled out by the police or might not contain additional information regarding this event of the haitian history problem solved we received the researchers information but we did not receive that body of information which would roughly fifty fifty and that was that the period of the trial court's ruling and how many total with respect to chicago i believe there are two hundred seventy files in issue with respect something in the range of six to seven hundred to in the entire database now of course are the the universe of closed cases changes over them you know some small percentage is tried there are many cases that plead short of trial and there are also cases in this universe but then they didn't result in criminal charges so for us to go through these transcripts yes we might  information with respect to some of the cases in a study assuming we could connect the trial transcripts to the study data but we surely wouldn't have the information that we need in order to s grown and gotten the transcripts because with the transcripts we would not be in a position to conduct the analysis that we need to conduct we have a set of data that includes six hundred to seven hundred  and the only way we can do that the only meaningful way this study can be evaluated yes we have an examination of each and every one of the instances in the study not just the quote transcripts so if we went and looked at the court transcripts we would not be in a position to do what we need to do which is going the databases which are saying what we need yes in addition to what the researchers examined we need those supplementary and line up reports that might reflect that of the cation histories and what i want to emphasize is that there is a suggestion in the city's submissions that that these files as you know there's a there's a one or two supplementary reports that are going to have the information relating to the background of the witnesses so it's a matter of going through those culling take the city's clearly over estimate at this because they're assuming that they're going to have to go through and redact all kinds of stuff that we don't want in the first place but it is going to take you know some dozens of hours to do that and so the question for you to decide with respect to this burdensome this issue is raising the importance of this study and the importance of this issue  from the supreme court saying that this case was transferred to join we have part of it was transferred to the from the third district our court and that's that's also since transferred from other district racketed in the first district and that the court order entered by hindsight i mean if i had had anticipated your question and the circumstance back in the will county courthouse i would have asked for the entry of a final judgment in light of the fact that everything had been resolved and that i should have been dotted and t's should have been crossed there's no question about it i mean you know clearly what you decide with respect to the chicago case the issues are the same there was a motion to dismiss this appeal with you know raising the prices contention that you've summarized and were was entered denying that motion so you know i stand here on the assumption that we're addressing both the joliet and the chicago  and clearly you know there have been three years of litigation in this case the city's police departments have never articulated a document specific reason as to why after all these redactions that we agree to have taken place there should not be disclosure of the documents so i  that this case should go back to the trial court with an articulated presumption that the police records that we are looking for should be disclosed now there may be a circumstance in which one of the police departments can articulate a specific reason as to a specific case were specific document that after you've made all the great actions if you look at the police report that there should be that there is some legitimate concern about privacy or law enforcement such a circumstance would warrant and in camera even with the privacy which is very important or it might compromise exactly what they require so that one of those exemptions is potentially in play not the kind of you know let's just review the roof remain in this case and dump all these records into the lap of the circuit c in and give the circuit court the responsibility to articulate what the government's position might be they this case should go back to the trial  with the presumption of disclosure and i think i've probably overstayed my time if not my law firm and i thank you records and having access to those records and as justice gallagher noted the first step and that is understanding the universe of documents that we're talking about now with regard to documents under c p d control c p d documents here i can give you now in the study the material actually considered by the ph d s who put together the study that is the center of this case is comprised of three general types of documents first of all as mr bowman alluded to there are forms there are actually two types of forms not just one kind of form but those are two one page form that were filled out by the people who by the by the officers who were involved in putting together wind ups or the photo rays in this case and that in most of these three hundred twenty three instances of an identification procedure there is a associated push and of the police's investigatory file which is has been referred to in this case as a supplementary reports now what has been turned over that i was beginning to describe the two forms and in most cases another stack of information also workers and we know things have happened as well this impending they have that material for the hundred sixty one or two he says are over those three hundred twenty three identification procedure casement we're talking you're talking cases not procedures numbers yes ok the numbers that have been won some turned over go approximately half of the one seventy one they either have been turned over oil in the interest of full disclosure may have gone closed since the distance that since they were trying to over an eligible to be turned over we can discuss that this goes to the to the um continuing possibility of cooperation between the es based on about half of the cases being still open so you have the open report data file half of the one hundred seventy cases the open report data file has not been turned over and then for all  investigatory files in the closed cases which have not been turned over the investigatory files in the open cases which have not been turned over the report data once again this is the information that actually was used to put inverted that that in the closed cases has been turned over in the open cases has not been turned over because of the asserted exemptions so to understand to come full circle to my first remark i stood up to understand the burden here you need to understand you're talking about one hundred seventy one investigatory files which depending on the nature of the underlying offense can beat in quite considerably huge and you're talking about about eighty five the record is not exactly clear but i think i can say that the two first ones that were sent back to the ph d's who did the study are not part of c p d f files the additional material that was sent over to the ph d s in the study in the majority of those cases would also probably be i mean would be in the files it may be duplicative because what happens is in most of the cases in most of the identification procedures there is part of the investigator i found that went over all there hasn't been a official mediation done and there has been obviously ongoing discussion about the contours of what type of information there is an ongoing disagreement about what sort of burden would be this is one hundred fifty personnel hours but only that severely underestimates were misrepresents what it would really involve what this would involve and justice gallagher pointed out you would need an attorney  absolutely someone who has verse an infrared can and determine whether or not certain things are exempt but the attorney in an individual case would not be capable of determining whether that was the entire story the attorney would need to talk to investigating officer in that case to make a determination whether there is material in these files or in these records or on these forms that although it may not to the attorney who knows nothing about the case  appear exempt because it runs the risk of of of putting at risk the interests that are protected by the section seven exemptions but specifically the section seven see exceptions dealing with  well not i don't mean to be glib or are seeing the base of but each case is different the way that an identification procedure may have been setting aside the standardized report data forms that were developed by the academic the material that is in the investigatory files and the way that c p t approaches and and over the course of this when you're starting to study approach to individual identification procedures is different it's often in the middle of what we think these things look like not exactly a name and that the record is not has not exactly been developed with excruciating detail on this front but generally speaking there is an initial report opening a case and then be some other than the deed to me exactly and in some places where the identifications the record shows that for example there would be there would be a for a photo array that the witness checks next to the person who they believe was was the culprit etc etc but i think the larger point here is that in every single one of these one hundred seventy one cases there are going to be a lot of pieces of paper with a lot of information much of which would not be at all relevant to four points purposes but of course would not be know whether it was until it had been reviewed and some determination made whether or not it was responsive to the for is not disclosed is simply implausible in this case and that is where the burden comes in the redaction process here would involve exhaustive melty party and now assess of the material so here so our submission of the gods of the burden is approximately twenty personnel days but those personnel days would be it would involve a number of different people different people per file and the logistical time involved would extend it beyond this twenty day period and as a matter of law we would submit under florida it is playing that a request that would take this amount of time it could not be completed within the maximum of fourteen days allowed under fire should be deemed by this court to be unduly burdensome and therefore exempt that is the position that we take with regard to the bird that course the we accept absolutely the the oem representation of what the public interest in the release of all this material is we agree that as a political matter that in the marketplace of ideas it would be helpful to to be able to say not only is this study flawed in design which they've already established with it for their purposes with a number of academics shining in on their side saying this is fundamentally flawed  fundamentally flawed because it did not take into account all the relevant data but that it will help them we agree to get all of this non report data all this data that was never considered by the ph d s who put this study and basically run their own study and say look if you had run a study the way we say it should have been run then you would get a different outcome certainly that would be helpful for them and certainly that would help them achieve what they've identified as well yes and it's really that's the task the test is whether or not the public purpose outweighs the burden but and this brings me to to the complexity of the public interest side of things that is not recognized work knowledge by pla that how can we decided and there are a lot of things that i mean i misspoke when i said that there's a disagreement about whether of whether or not to take a step back there are no facts in dispute and here's why reflect the concept that this one hundred and fifty men our personnel our approach would involve would be a complex endeavor with which might involve more than one person per piece of paper look but they neglect to look at the two public interests that are promoted by not disclosing this information the first one is that by disclosing the information you run the risk regardless of how how much burden you take on to make sure that your redacting information of disclosing information that causes harm either to an ongoing investigation public i v says an interest in the  integrity of investigations or god forbid two individuals involved in the underlying cases investigations witnesses people who get information obviously redaction in an ideal world a perfectly done reaction a perfectly done production is going to protect  state statute was compelled to set to participate in it however in most instances where the public body agrees to participate in the act in which they like this is going to be voluntarily this was in this wasn't but in many cases an academic will say it will go to a public body of some sort and bodies going forward to participate on telly in studies and that is because the city would be forced the public body would be forced under this president not only to pursue it deploy it disclose information that was actually directly relevant essentially to throw open its files to a for a request for any information that is arguably germane to the underlying subject matter of the study if the school were to determine that a public body is under fire going to hell that responsibility then it would just become a simply too much trouble for public at the to to run the risk that that was going to happen in terms of logistics and burden be substantively public bodies are going to be has a tense about getting involved in studies where they might have to give up information that they think is as the city takes this and here is is exempt and the risk of giving up is that material is i've certainly not saying that i'm just saying that under fria there are the consideration under section three subsection three involves balancing the public interest in knowing the public does have an interest and we're not we're not denying that there is a public interest that derives from disclosure but principle this case the city takes no position with regard to the validity of the study ok the validity of the state much in the same way that justice over had recognized that that is not essential we take no position we did not we did not support it we did not detract at the point we or at least arguably established that the study was fundamentally flawed by design and that it was friendly flawed in that it failed to take into account this information so in the marketplace of ideas in the political world in the political reality they have a lot of any mission to take on the results of the study what they want now and earlier in the earlier case there's a lot of football analogy being thrown around they want to pile on this but they want to completely and they want to completely that day comes into play in this case that there is an in camera up procedure some sort under the step under the act it is very clear that what would need to happen in that remained would be an incredibly burdensome process and there's no getting around that plaintiff would like to present it as though the city would have the century take on this burden and then give the give the court just a pass on certain select documents that's it that's not what the act not the place where the act contemplates under section  the city asserting exemption exemptions on certain documents giving them to the court having the court make the determination whether there are exceptions and if there are exemptions whether or not there is a redaction protocol that could take care of  with respect to this birds versus benefit analysis of a couple of very quick points in rebuttal twenty personnel days on the one hand versus important public debate on the other hand to be very clear the study has not been withdrawn the authors of the study reject the criticisms that have been made of it they  if you look on the chicago police website where the study is published there isn't a dent into the study that says speculative hypotheses are all we've heard in opposition to this study don't don't reject this on the basis of speculative hypotheses so we have a standoff in the public policy debate as a result a standoff with respect to this question of legislative reform there is a body of law to which the court can have well fronts in deciding this question about benefit versus good there or indeed cases cited in the briefs in which a trivial or non existent benefit does not outweigh a burden of that word or of magnitude that's been talked about here one the other hand there are cases and the cited in the briefs in which there may be an imp of a public benefit of some nature but the board burden is gargantuan right not twenty personnel days but eight years of work to go through a warehouse i submit that there is no case of which we are aware that has been cited in the briefs in which sloan small an acknowledged burden has been held to outweigh so large a potential benefit in disclosure so if you were to decide in favor of the city you would you would be erecting and a new miss barrier to the principle of open debate and disclosure that animates our four yo it's in the record of course that the city of evanston disclosed all this information there were no untoward facts this is a