FOURTH DIVISION February 25, 2010 Nos. 1-08-2073 and 1-08-3414 (co nsolida ted) NAT IO NAL AS SO CIAT IO N OF C RIM IN AL DEFENSE LA

WYER S, Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l an t, v. CHICAG O POLICE DEPA RTMENT, Defe ndan t-Appell ee.

__________________________________________ NAT IO NAL AS SO CIAT IO N OF C RIM IN AL DEFENSE LA

WYER S, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, v. CHIEF OF THE JOLI ET POLI CE DEPA RTMENT, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty No. 07 CH 3622 Ho no r ab le Mar y Anne Maso n, Judge Presidin

g.

________________________ Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of W i l l Cou n ty No. 07 MR 530 Ho no r ab le Bob bi N. P etru ng aro, Judge Presidin

g.

JU STI CEGA

LL A GH ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Thi s consoli

dated appeal i

nvol ves requests for data made b y pl ai ntif f-appel la nt National A ss oci ati on of Cri m i na l De f ense La wy ers (NA CD L) un de r th e Il l i noi s Free dom

of In f orm ati on Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq . (West 2006)). NACDL requested the data used to assemb le a le gis la tivel y m andated study of

ey ewi tness i dentif ic ation procedures by

the Chi cago Polic e1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

2

Departmen

t, t he Jol ie t Po li ce Departmen

t and two o ther police agenci es. The Ch

ic ago and Joli

et Police Departmen

ts tendered fi

nal adm in is trat iv e responses to the requests, decli ni ng to pro duce the ma jori ty of the data requested. NACDL fi le d sui t again st both agencies, seeki ng to compel prod uc ti on of the req ue ste d da ta. The pa rti esi n th e C hi cago c as e f

i l ed cros s- moti ons

f or su m mar y j udgm en t. NA CD L a

l so f i l ed a m oti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t i n th e Joli et c as e. Both trial cou rtsdi re cte d def en da n ts to pr oduce

som e of th e req ue ste d data

b ut r ul ed th at th e m aj ori ty of t he infor matio n so ught was eithe r p ro t ect ed fr om d isclos ur e by FOI A’s law e nfor cement and priv acy exem ptions or was too burdens ome f or t he agen

ci es to pro duce. On appeal, NACDL con ten dstha t: (1 ) th e l

aw en f orce men t an d pr i va cy exem ptions of FO IA do n ot ba r disc l osu re of po lice dat a aft er all per so nal ident ify ing informat ion has been r eda ct ed, (2 ) t he ge ner ic and con cl us ory sta tem en ts i n p ol i ceaf

f i da vi ts a re i ns uf f i ci en t to sa ti sf y the pol i ceag en cy ’s bu rde n of pr oo f to sho w t hat an exe mpt ion ap plies, ( 3) t he pr ivacy exempt ion o f FOIA d oe s no t bar t he dis cl osure of photo graphs used i n l in eups af ter all personal ide ntif yi ng i nf ormation h

as been
r ed ac t ed , an d ( 4) t he bu r de n o f r ed ac t ing ide nt ifying in fo rmat io n d o es no t o ut we igh t he pu blic in terest in obtaini ng the request ed data. For t he reasons that foll ow, we aff

irm the tr ial cour ts’ partial gran t of su m mary j udgm en t in f avor of NA

CDL , reverse

the tri al courts’ gran

t of su m mary judgm ent in fav or o f the C

hicago and Joli

et Po li ce Departmen

ts and rem

and f or further pr oc eed ings co nsist ent wit h t his op inion. I. BACKG

ROUND In 2003, the Ill

in ois Gen eral A ssem bl y passed section 107A-10 of the Code of Cri mi nal Pr o ce du r e o f 19 63 ( 72 5 I LC S 5 /1 07 A- 10 ( We st 20 06 ) ) . T his le gis lat io n d ire ct ed t he I llino is1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

3

Stat e Police to co nduct a one-year pil ot study i n the f ie ld on the e ff

ectiveness of the sequen

tial me thod for li neup procedures. Under the sequen tial me thod, a witness is shown l in eup par t icipant s o ne at a t ime and must st at e whe t her t he individual sho wn is t he pe rp et ra t or of t he cr ime befor e viewing t he next lineup pa rt icipant . Mo re ove r, t he lineup a dministr at or must be someone who do es not kno w whi ch participan t is the suspect. 725 ILCS 5/1 07A-10(c)( 2) (West 2006). The traditional

li neup procedure in

volv es the si mul taneous viewi

ng of al l l in eup partici pants, and the l

in eup adm in is trat or usuall

y kn ows which partici

pants are suspects an

d whi ch partici pants are “f

il le rs,” i.e. , persons who are not suspects thems el ves b ut bear a phy

si cal resem bl ance to the suspect. The statut e di rected the Ill

in ois State Polic e to select three police departments to participa

te in the study (725 ILCS 5/107A-10(b) (West 2006)) and Ch ic ago, Jolie

t and Evan ston were sele cted. The study was conducted i n 2004 an d 2005. Th e p rogram

di rector of the Ill i noi s study rel ea se d a rep ort of the study ’s f i nd i ng s on March 17, 2006. The report co ncl uded that the Ill

in ois data did not bear out the research experim ents that suggest t hat sequential, double-bl in d li neups produ ce a lower rat e of known false ide nt ifica t io ns. I nst ea d, t he st ud y fo un d t ha t t he se qu en t ial, do ub le- blind pr o ce du r es r es ult ed in an o ver all higher r at e o f kno wn false ide nt ifi cat ions t han did t he simulta neo us lineup s. T he five categories i

n particul ar for whi ch the study

concl uded that the sequentia

l, doubl e-bl in d procedures ma y produce a h

igh er rate o f f

al se identif

ic ations are: (1) chi

ld wi tnesses, (2) older wi

tnesses, (3) cr os s-r acial ident ifi

cat ions, (4 ) mult iple per pet ra t or s, a nd ( 5) sus pec t s who do not matc h t he descri ption bec ause of a ch

ange i n appearan

ce.1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

4

The Illinois st udy wa s o ne o f the first t o c omp ar e t he t wo metho ds in t he field. T he resul ts of the study recei

ved n ational publ ic ity and h ave b een cri

tici zed by social sci ence re se arch er s w h o h av e c i ted f l aw s i n th e stud y de si gn an d th e f ai l ur e of th e rep ort’ s a

uth orsto submit t he st udy fo r sc ientific pe er re view. NACD L sent Fre edo m of Info rmat ion Act (FO IA)
r eq ue st s t o t he I llino is S t at e P o lice an d t he t hr ee po lice de pa r t men t s d es ign at ed as pa r t icip an t s in t he st udy. The FOI A req ues t s so ught t he fo llowing infor matio n: ( 1) t he pr oc edu re s follo wed by in vestigating of

fi cers i n the control group of cases wh ic h f oll owed the traditional

si mul taneous lineu p me t ho d, inclu ding do cu ment at io n o n wh et her ea ch live lineu p w as a fir st view ing o f a su sp ec t b y

an ey ewi tn es s or i f th e eyewi

tn es s h ad pr ev i ous l y i den ti f i ed th e s us pe ct i n a p h oto li neup, (2) the traini

ng m aterial s and records f

or po li ce personnel

partici pating i n the study , (3) records regarding the retention of certain personnel

in connecti on with the s

tudy, (4) the crim

in al cou rt ca se nu m be rs f or ea ch ca se i nc l ude d i n th e s tudy toge the r wi th th e c orre sp ond

i ng photos an d re cord i ng s of l i ne ups an d al l photos show

n to a n e yew i tne ss dur i ng a p hoto s pre ad or se qu en ti al ph oto a rra y , a n d ( 5) th e c om

pl ete da tab as e of i n f orm ati on us ed to ge n erate th e data tab l es i n th e rep ort. The Chicag o P olice D epa rt ment ( CPD ) d enied t he r equ est , st at ing t hat it d id no t have som e of the req ue ste d doc

um en ts a nd cl ai m i ng tha t the rem ai ni ng doc um en ts w ere exem pt f rom discl osure u nder the law enf

orcement exemption of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1) (c) and (d) (West 2006)). The Joliet Po li

ce Departmen

t (JPD) discl

osed some of the reques

ted documents, stated th at i t di d n ot h av e s om e of th e req ue ste d docu

men ts, an d c l ai med th at th e rem ai n i n g docu men ts were ex em pt fr om d i scl osure u nde r the pri vacy and law en

f orcem en t exem pti ons of FOIA (51-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

5

ILCS 140/7(1)(b), (c)(i) and (vi ii ) (West 2006)). The Evanston Poli ce Departmen

t also deni

ed the request, and the Ill

in ois State Polic e produced some docume nts but decl

in ed to pr oduce do cu men t s be lo ng ing t o t he va r io us po lice de pa r t men t s. NA CD L file d la ws uit s in C o o k a nd Will counties agai

nst the f our po li ce agenci es, seeki ng to compel

product ion of

the requested docum en ts. The E v ansto n

Pol i ce De pa rtm en t re ach ed an ag re em en t ea rl y on i n th e l i ti ga ti on wi th NA CDL to provide th e requ

ested docum en ts wi th red actions a nd i s n ot a party to thi s ap peal . The Illinois St at e Po lice remains a par t y in the Chica go cas e, but is ta king no act ive ro le in the litigat ion and informed NACD L t hat it w ill co mply with any app licable co ur t or der re gar ding t he discl osure o f the documents in its possession f

rom the designated police departments. CPD fi le d a m ot ion f or summ ary judgme

nt with s upport in g ma terial s. CPD asserted that th e req ue ste d docu

men ts were ex em

pt f rom pr oducti on b ec au se th ei r re l ea se wou l d ( 1) con sti tute an invasio n of bo t h public and per so nal pr ivacy, ( 2) inter fere wit h pend ing law enfo rc ement pr o ce ed ing s, ( 3) o bst ruc t o ng o ing cr iminal in ve st iga t io ns, an d ( 4) dis clo se info rmat io n sp ec ifica lly prohi bi ted f rom d i scl osure u nde r f edera l and state l

aw, ci tin g se cti ons 7 (1)(a), (b

) and (c) of

FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a), ( b)(v), (c)(i), (c)(vi ), (c)(vii i) (W est 2006)). Mo reover, the research required to determi

ne wh ether each m

atter remai

ned pen din g would consti

tut e an un due burden pursuan t to secti on 3(f

) of F OIA (5 ILC S 140/3(f

) (We st 2006 )). In su ppo rt of it s mot ion, CPD submitt ed t he affidavit s o f Officer Ma t t hew S ando val and Li eutenant Jam

es Gi bson. Sandova

l s tated t hat he h

ad conducted a random s am pli ng of 10 cas es use d in t he st udy and his sample r ese ar ch indicat ed t hat of t he 25 0 invest igat ions invo lved in t he study , approx i matel y ha l f of the i nv esti gations were stil

l open . Gi bs on su bm i tted two af

f i dav i ts.1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

6

In th e f i rs t af f i da v i t, he state d th

at f or op en i n v esti ga ti on s, re l ea si

n g th e req ue ste d docu

men ts

“ coul d very

we l l i nte rf ere ” w i th th e i nv es ti ga ti ons . Su sp ec ts c oul

d b ec ome a

wa re of the sta tusof an i nvestigation, what the po li ce know and what evidence they have. Di sclosure could also present a ri sk to t he saf

ety of wi tnesses an

d their f am il ie s. In the second af

fi davi t, Gibson s

tated t hat for op en ca ses, even a re dac t ed d oc ument co uld st ill po ssibly be li

nked t o a n ong oing invest igat ion bec aus e alt hou gh t he cr ime may have o ccu rr ed in a lar ge c ity, t he members of t he small community in which t he cr ime occ ur re d co uld r eco gnize t he de t ails of a s pec ifi c incident and t he s afe t y of v ict ims and wit nes se s c o uld be c o mpr o mised . G ibso n fur t her st at ed t hat if a
r ed ac t ed do cu men t wa s link ed t o an o ng o ing inve st iga t io n, an at - lar ge pe r pe t r at o rco uld be co me aware of what evi dence the pol ic e hav e agai nst hi m a nd coul d le arn about specifi c poli ce i n v esti ga ti v e te ch n i qu es . G i

b son sa i d th ere is n o wa y to ad eq ua tel y re dact th es e docu men ts because no si ngle em ploy ee possesses the

knowle dge and discretion to determin e what in form ation ne eds to be redacted. Gibson a ls o stat ed that releasi

ng photographs of l

in eup pa r t icip an t s “c o uld co nst it ut e a vio lat io n o f pr iva cy. ” F ina lly, G ibso n c o nc ed ed t ha t do cu men t s in clos ed c ase s co uld be r elease d if the follow ing informat ion is r eda ct ed: (1 ) a ll perso nal ident ify ing informat ion o f victims, w itnes ses a nd su spe ct s, ( 2) t he exa ct loca t ion o f the incident , ( 3) t he ide ntities of i ndi vi dual li neup partici

pants, and (4) the exac

t date, in ternal records di

vi si on (RD) num bers, and ot her iden

tify in g codes. NACDL fi le d a cross-motion f

or summ ary judgme

nt, explai ni ng that the police data was necessary to advance an ongoin

g publi c debate about the pro blem of erroneous eyewitness ident ifi cat ions in cr imi

nal invest igat ions. NACD L submit t ed t he affidavit s o f Rob Wa rd en,1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

7

executi ve di rector of the Northwestern Uni versi ty School of

Law Cen ter o n W rongful Conv i cti ons, Norma

n R ei mer, NA CDL ’sex ecuti

ve di rector, an d prof ess or Nan cy Stebl ay, a social psy chol ogist wi

th expertis e i

n ey ewi tness i dentif ic ation research

whom N ACDL retained as a c on su l tan t. Warden is a specialis

t in l egal aff ai rs, focusi ng pri ma ril y on w rongful convi ctions. He note d that i

n 5 9.3 % of

the doc um en ted wron gf ul con vi cti ons i n I l l i noi s s i nc e 1 900 , or 5 4 out of 91 known case s, eyewi

tness i dentif ic ation was the pri

nci pal prosecution evi

dence. W

arden stated that erro neous ey

ewi tness i dentif ic ation i s by

far the m ost prevalen

t factor in wrongf

ul conv i cti ons. Moreover , wrong f ul conv i cti ons e ntai l enormous

soci al costs, e.g. , 601 y

ears co llectively behind bar s for t he 54 men and w omen k now n t o ha ve bee n wr ong fully co nvicte d and $39 m i l l i on f or taxpa yers i n j ust thre e ci

vi l ri ghts actions s tem m i ng f rom th ese conv i cti ons. Wa r de n e xp laine d t ha t t he r es ult s o f t he st ud y hav e h ad a p r o fo un d e ffec t o n p ub lic p o licy in Ill in ois, m aki ng i t unli kel y tha t t he Il li nois General Asse mbly wil l a ct to reform pol

ic e i de nti f i ca ti on proce dur

es . Re i mer provi de d e xa

m plesof si tua ti ons i n w hi ch oppon en ts of reformi ng l in eup procedures have us ed the resul ts of the study to support the use of traditional lineu p p r o ce du r es . St eb lay s t at ed t ha t t he r es ult s o f t he st ud y co nt r ad ict ed de ca de s o f sc ien t ific re sea rc h. T he st udy has also been c rit icized in t he sc ientific co mmunity for flaws in its d esign a nd metho do log y and a p anel o f rese ar cher s de clare d it unr eliable as a ba sis for det er mini ng effec t ive ey ewi tn es s i den ti f i ca ti on pr oce du re s. Ste b l ay f ur th er sta ted th at sh e is a

cti n g a s a con su l tan t to NACDL without a consul

ting f ee. Her role as a cons

ultant i s not to promote o ne l in eup strategy over a nothe r, bu t to advocate f

or sound sc i ence pa

rtic ularl y as i t in f orms pub l i c pol

i cy .1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

8

Or al arg ument s we re sche duled on t he pa rt ies’ cr os s-mo t ions fo r su mmary judgment , a nd t he co ur t re co mmended t hat t he pa rt ies co nsider set t ling the cas e und er an ag re ement wher eby the CPD wo uld p ro vide NAC DL w ith t he r equ est ed, re dac t ed p olice r eco rd s su bject t o a pr ot ect ive order proh

i bi tin g the i r di sse m i na tion . The parties w ere un

ab l e to reach

an agree men t; howev er, dur ing set t lement ne go t iatio ns, N ACDL lea rne d t hat t her e had been a misunder st anding r ega rd ing t he sc o pe o f it s F OI A r eq ue st . NA CD L a lso lea rne d t ha t t he r es ea r ch er s ha d n o t ha d a cc es s t o all of the poli

ce records concerni

ng the i nve stigati ons that were in cl uded i n the study

but had b een f urn i sh ed wi th a f orm su m mari zi ng the outc ome of

the l i ne ups an d s ome l i m i ted doc um en tation f rom i n di v i du al i n v esti ga ti on s. CP D h

ad i n ter pr ete d th e req ue st to i n cl ude on l y th ose doc um en ts to wh i ch the res ea rch ers ha d a cc es s (rep ort da

ta). Thi s m

i su nd ers tan di ng l ed to the f i l i ng of supplem ental argumen

ts and eviden

ce by both part ies. NACDL subm itted a second af

fi davi t o f Stebl ay , in whi ch sh e expl ai ned wh y a me ani ngf ul cr itiqu e o f the st udy r equ ired acc ess t o a ll of the re co rd s in or der t o d et er mine whet her impor t ant ident ifi cat ion hist or y had bee n exclud ed fr om t he st udy. CPD submitt ed t he affidavit of a ssist ant corp orati on c oun se l

A m be r Ri tter, i n w hi ch sh e e sti mate d that re da cti

ng the f ul l pol i cef i l e f or each i nvestigation i

ncl uded in the study would take 170 ho urs. In t he Jo liet ca se, NACD L filed a mot ion fo r su mmary judgment t hat was ident ical to t he
m otion i t fi l ed i n the Ch i cago c ase . JPD re spon

ded, s ubm i ttin g the af f i dav i ts of O f f i cer R obert Puleo an d Dep uty Pol i ce Chi

ef Patri ck K

err. Pul eo esti mated that i

t woul d take 1 97 pe

rson hours to re dact th

e 2 57 pol i ce f i l es th at h ad b een i n cl uded i n th e stud y . K er r’ s af f i da v i t wa s s i m i l ar to t he Gibso n affidavits t hat wer e su bmitt ed in t he Chica go cas e. He s t at ed t hat t he disc losu re of t he1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

9

requested documents “ could very we ll ” i nterfere wi

th ongoing pol

ic e i nve stigati ons. He further st at ed t ha t t he r ele as e o f t he po lice r ep o r t s w o uld co nst it ut e a n inv as io n o f pr iva cy o f t he vic t ims and wi tnesses i nvol ved. I n t he Ch ica go ca se , t he cir cu it co ur t an alyz ed o pe n a nd clo se d i nve st ig at io ns se pa r at ely, and also disti

ngui shed the report data from the rem ai ni ng i nf ormation contai

ned i n the poli ce i nv esti gation f i l es. W i th res pect to the ope

n f i l es, the court determ

i ne d tha t these f i l es w ere exempt under sect ion 7(1) (c) o f FOIA (5 ILCS 140/ 7(1) (c) ( West 20 06)) , re ly ing on Gibson’s aff ida vi ts. For t he cl

osed fi le s, CPD agreed to pro duce the report data with al l pe rsonal iden tify in g in formation redacted. This l eft three unreso lv

ed issues wi

th respect to the closed fi les: (1) re daction of the faces from the photo graphs of li neup participants, (2) r edaction of the RD number s, a nd ( 3) pr od uct ion o f the re maining inf or matio n in the p olice inves t igat ion files. T he cou rt f oun d that the p ri

va cy i nte res ts of the l i ne up p arti ci pa nts outwe i ghed

the i nte res ts of NA CD L a nd t he pu blic in vie win g t he ph o t o gr ap hs a nd rule d t ha t CP D c o uld r ed ac t t he fac es in the phot ogr aphs. However, the cou rt r uled that CPD co uld not redact the RD numb ers because cl osed fi le s are al ready i n the pub li

c record so t he rel

ease of a n

umb er that would all

ow NACDL t o mat ch a p olice file t o a spe cific case wo uld no t co nst itu t e an invasio n of p rivacy. Finally , t he cou rt rul ed tha t the prod uc ti on of i nf orm ati on i n th e p ol i cei nv es ti ga ti on f i l estha t wa s n ot pa rt of th e rep ort data

wou l d i m pos e a su b sta n ti al b urden on CP D, an d th at th e pub l i c i n terest i n th e data did not ou tweigh the burden of redacting the docu men ts. In the Jolie

t case, the circui

t cour t held tha

t t he i nf ormation i

n open case s was exem

pt fr o m dis clo su r e u nd er se ct io ns 7 ( 1) ( b) an d ( c) o f FO I A ( 5 I LC S 1 40 /7 ( 1) ( b) ( v) , ( c) ( iii), ( c) ( viii)1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

10

(Wes t 200 6) ). The circu it co ur t gr ant ed N ACDL’ s mot ion fo r su mmary judgment in par t and or der ed J PD t o p ro duc e t he r epo rt dat a in the clos ed c ase s wit h all per so nal ident ify ing i nf orm ati on r edac ted . The c ourt h

el d that the p hotog

raphs i n th e c l ose d c as eswere exe

m pt f rom di scl osure u nde r section 7(1)(b) of F OIA

(5 ILC S 140/7(1)(b)(v) (We st 2006 )). Fi na l l y , the c ourt held t hat JPD did no t have t o p ro duc e infor matio n fro m close d ca ses t hat was not par t of t he
r ep o r t da t a b ec au se t he r ed ac t io n o f ide nt ifying in fo rmat io n c o nt ain ed in t ho se mat er ials wo uld i m pose a n un due b urden on the depa rtme nt. NA CDL f i l ed n otice s of appe al i n the Fi rst Di stri ct i

n the Ch i cago c ase

and i n the Thi rd Dis trict in the Joli et case. NACDL then

fi le d a m ot ion i n the Il li nois Supreme C ourt to transfer the J oli et cas e to the F i

rst Di stri ct and con soli date the app eals. The Il l i noi s Suprem

e Court granted t he m

ot ion on Decemb er 4, 20 08. This consolidated ap peal f ollows.

II. AN AL YSIS Su m mar y j udgm en t i s prop er

wh en th e p l eadi

n gs , de pos i ti on s, an d a f f i da v i ts d em on strate that no genuin

e issue of m

aterial f act exists and that t he m

oving party i s entitled to judgment as a matt er o f law. 735 ILCS 5/2 -10 05( c) ( West 200 4); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Coe , 367 Ill . App. 3d 604, 607, 855 N.E. 2d 173, 176 (2006). We revi ew de novo an order gran tin g sum mary j udgm en t. Jones v. Country Mutual Insurance C o. , 371 Ill . App. 3d 1096, 1098, 8 64 N.E.2 d 793, 7 95 (20 07). CP D c ha l l en ge s th i s c ourt’ s j urisd

i cti on ov er th e Jol i et c as e on

the grou nds th at a de ni al of sum ma ry j udgme nt is not a fi nal and appeal

abl e order, citin

g Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

11

Insurance Co. , 342 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 94 0, 795 N .E.2d 412 , (2003 ). This ca se is disti ngu i shab l e. In Central Illinois Light , the p l ai n ti f f f i l ed an i n dem n i f i ca ti on ac ti on ag ai n st m ul ti pl e ex ce ss l i ab i l i ty i ns urers . The

def endan ts f i l ed n i ne motion s f

or sum mary j udgm en t, three of whi ch were den i ed. The court co ncl

uded that it had n

o juri sdi ction over the three den ia ls because they were not fi

nal orders. Central Illinois Light , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 964, 795 N.E .2d at 433. “An or der is final and app ealable if it t er minates t he litigat ion bet wee n t he pa rt ies o n t he
meri ts or di spose s of

the ri ghts of the parti

es, e i ther on the e nti re con troversy or a sep arate p art thereof.” R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc. , 181 Ill . 2d 153, 159, 692 N.E .2d 306, 310 (1 998 ). The only significant d iff er ence bet wee n t he Chica go and J oliet cas es is t hat t he parties i n the Ch ic ago case fi

le d cross-motions f

or summ ary judgme

nt, while JPD m erely fi le d a resp onse to NACD L’ s m

otion f or sum mary j udgm en t. Both lower courtsordered the d i scl osure of som e of the req ue ste d doc

um en ts a nd he l d that the re

mai ni ng doc um en ts w ere prote cte d f

rom di scl osure u nde r va ri ous ex em pti ons i n F OIA . The

order i n the Jol i et cas e states

that “ al l matters in contro versy

have been

resolved.” There was n

ot hi ng else f or t he parties

to li tigate in the Joli et case. Thi s court is not deprived of j urisdi ction be cause the m

ot ion f or summ ary judgme

nt was pa rti al l y deni ed an d the c ourt d

i d n ot sp ec i f i cal l y en ter j udg men t i n f av or of JP D. The

de ni al of NACDL ’s m

ot ion f or summ ary judgme

nt as to t he m

aj ority of the requested documents operated as a j udgm en t in f avor of J PD. The court ac cepted

JPD’ s arg

um en t that the d

ocum en ts were exem pt from di sclosure and the order ter mi nated the liti

gation be tween the parties. Inde ed, appeal was the onl

y recourse l

eft to NACDL i

n i ts att em pt t o obt ai

n the docum

ents. Thus, we concl ude that the order was f

in al and appeal

abl e and this court has jurisdi ction over the Jolie t1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

12

case. We no w t ur n t o t he issue s o n app eal. FOI A dec lares t hat it is “t he pu blic policy of t he State of Il l i noi s tha t al l pers ons a

re en titl ed to f ull and com pl ete i nf orma tion regar di ng th e af f ai rs o f go ve rnme nt an d t he o fficia l ac t s a nd po licie s o f t ho se wh o r ep r es en t t he m as pu blic o fficia ls and p ublic employee s co nsist ent wit h t he t er ms of t his Act . S uch a cce ss is nec essa ry t o e nable t he people to fulfi

ll their duti es of discussi

ng publ ic is sues f ull y a nd f reely , maki ng i nf ormed poli

tical judgm ents and m

onitorin g governm

ent to ensure that it is b ei

ng conducted i

n the pub li

c i nterest.” 5 ILC S 140/ 1 (West 200 6). The legislat ur e r eco gnized t hat even w ith su ch a p olicy cer t ain do cument s sho uld no t be disclo sed , a nd it ded icat ed s ect ion 7 of FO IA t o e xempt ions. This se ct ion p ro vides, in relevant pa rt: “(1) The f oll owing s hal l b e exem pt from i nspection and copy

in g: *** (b) Inf ormation that, if

dis cl osed, would constitute a cle arly unwarranted inva sio n o f pe r so na l pr iva cy* ** . ** *I nfo rmat io n e xe mpt ed un de rt his su bs ec ti on ( b)sh al l i nc l ude bu t i s n ot l i m i ted to: * * * (v ) i n f orm ati on re v ea l i n g th e i den ti ty of pers on s w

h o f i l e c om pl ai n ts with or pro vide in

formation to ** * law enf

orcement *** agencies; * * * (c ) Re co rd s co mpiled by any public bod y for a dministr at ive enfor cement1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

13 proceedin gs and an y l aw enf orcemen t o r correct iona

l a gency for l aw en f orc em en t pu rp ose s or f or i n ter n al matte rsof a pub l i c b ody

, but on l y to the extent that discl

osure would: (i) i nterfere wi

th pendi ng or actuall

y a nd reasonab ly

contempl ated l aw en f orce men t proc ee di ng s c ond uc ted by an y l aw en f orce men t or co rr ec t io na l ag en cy; * * * (i v)unav oi da bl y di sc l ose the i de nti ty of a c onf i de nti al sou rce or confi dentia l i nf ormation f

urni shed onl

y b y the confi dentia l s ource; (v) di sclose unique or special iz ed i nve stigati ve techn ique s other than those general

ly used and kn

own ***; (vi) c ons t itu t e an invasio n of p er so nal pr ivacy unde r su bsec t ion ( b) of t his Sec t ion; (vii) end ange r t he life or physical safet y of law enfo rc ement pe rs onn el or an y othe r pe rs on;or (vi i i) obstruct an on

goin g cri m i nal i nvesti gation .” 5 ILCS 14 0/7 (We st 2006 ). Fi nal ly , FOIA pro vides: “ Re qu ests c al

l i n g f or al l re cordsf al l i n g w i th i n a c ate gor y sh al l b e c om pl i ed wi th unless c omp liance wit h t he r equ est wo uld be u nduly bur dens ome fo r t he compl yi ng publ ic body a nd there i s no way

to narrow the request and the burden1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

14 on the pub l i c b ody

outweighs

the publ i c i ntere st i n the i nf orma tion . Bef ore invok ing t his exempt ion, t he pu blic body sha ll extend t o t he pe rso n making t he re qu est an

opp ortu n i ty to co n f er wi th i t i n an atte m pt to r ed uc e th e req ue st to managea bl e proporti ons.”

5 ILC S 140/3(f

) (We st 2006 ). Pu blic reco rd s ar e pr esu med t o be op en and acc essible und er FOI A and t he exe mpt ions are to be read n arrowl y . Lieber v

. Board of Trus tees of South ern Illino is Unive rsity , 176 Ill . 2d 401 , 4 08, 680 N. E. 2d 3 74, 377 (1 997 ). With t hat in mi nd, t his co ur t must add re ss t he fo llowing iss ue s: ( 1) wh et he rt he cir cu it co ur t s e rr ed in d et er mining t ha t all d at a in t he o pe n inv es t iga t io ns is prot ected from disclosure under the priv acy and l aw enf orcemen t exem ptions an d, if so, whether t he und ue bu rd en exe mpt ion ap plies, ( 2) whet her t he circ uit co ur t s er re d in det er mini ng t hat t he fac es in t he ph o t o gr ap hic lineu ps sho uld be r ed ac t ed , an d ( 3) wh et he rt he cir cu it co ur t s e rr ed in determi ni ng that redacting the

documen ts from the pol

ic e i nve stigati on fi

le s would i

mpose an und ue b urden on the pol i ce a gen cies. NA CD L f i rs t con ten dsth at th e tr i al cou rtsi n b oth ca se s e rre d i n h ol di n g th at th e af f i da v i ts submitt ed by CP D and JPD wer e su ffi cient t o invo ke t he law e nfor cement and p rivacy exe mpt ions in c as e file s inv o lving o ng o ing inve st iga t io ns. Aft er t he cir cu it co ur t s in b o t h c as es rule d o n t his issue, t his co ur t issued an o pinion in Day v. City of Chicago , 388 Ill . App. 3d 70, 902 N.E.2d 114 4 ( 200 9) . I n Day , this court held that aff ida vi ts subm itted by Sandoval and Gi bson (that app ear t o be near ly i

dent ical to t he affidavit s su bmitt ed by t hese same individua ls in the inst ant cas e) wer e ent irely co ncluso ry and inadeq uat e t o s ust ain the city’s bu rd en t o s how t hat t he reque sted doc

um en ts were ex em pt. Day , 388 I ll . App. 3d at 75, 902 N .E. 2d at 1 149. T he case1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

15

was re manded and t he circ uit co ur t was dire ct ed t o c ond uct an in camera re view o f the docum en ts i n orde r to determ

i ne wh ethe r the l aw en f orcem en t or privacy

ex em pti ons a ppl i ed. Day , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 80, 902 N.E .2d at 1153. CPD c once desthat af

ter Day , t he affid av it s s ub mit t ed ar e in su fficie nt t o su pp o r t it s c laim that the docum en ts are protected un

der the law en

f orcem en t and pri vacy ex em pti ons of FOIA . Howev er, b eca use the c i rcui t courts rul

ed th at the production of

docum en ts outside of

the re port data in the cl osed cases woul d be un duly burdens ome, CPD asks thi s court t o extend that rationale to all

documen ts in the open i

nve stigati ons. If thi s court should concl ude that pr od uct ion o f the do cument s wo uld no t be und uly burd enso me, CP D as ks t his co ur t t o r emand for an in camera review of the docum ents to det ermi

ne wh ether the la

w enf orcemen t and priv acy ex emp t io ns a pp ly. T o av o id u nd ue bu r de n o n t he cir cu it co ur t , CP D s ug ge st s t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t lim it it s re view t o t hos e files tha t co nt ain so me mark er indicat ing t hat pr od uct ion o f the docum en ts woul d obstruct the i

nv esti gation, e.g. , ca se s in w hic h t he r e is a livin g p er pe t r at o rst ill at larg e. CPD furt her sug ges t s t hat t he circ uit co ur t may li mit its r eview t o a sample o f the docum en ts. NACDL asks thi s court t o reverse the ci rcuit courts o utright and order the poli ce agenci es t o su bmit t he r eq ue st ed da t a in o pe n c as es wit h r ed ac t io ns. NA CD L c o nt en ds t ha t r ec o r ds in which all ident ify

ing informat ion is r eda ct ed w ill not yield inf

or matio n t hat wo uld t hre at en t he sa fet y o f a w it ne ss o rpr o vid e in fo rmat io n t o an at - lar ge su sp ec t . Alt er na t ive ly, N ACD L a sk s t his co ur t t o r equ ire t hat t he po lice age ncies r eview t he r equ est ed r eco rd s, p er for m the r eda ct ions, and pres en t to t he court f or in camera in

spection any

specif ic records for which they

bel iev e there is a1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

16

reasonabl e possibil ity that discl osure even wi

th redactions could obstruct o r im pede l aw enf orcem en t. We agree wi th b oth parties that the af f i dav i ts sub m i tted to the ci

rcui t courts were i ns uf f i ci en t to sa ti sf y the bu rde n of sh owi ng tha t an y sta tutory exem ption a ppl i es . Mor eover, f or the rea sons d

i scus se d b el

ow, w e re j ec t CPD ’s

arg um en t tha t red ac ti on of the ope n i nv es ti ga ti on fil es w ou ld be und uly burd enso me. We d o no t agr ee t hat t he o rd er of t he circ uit co ur t gr ant ing su m mary j udg men t i n f av or of the pol i ceag en ci essh oul d b e re ve rs ed outri gh t, but we also do not t hink it is ap pr op riat e fo r t he circ uit co ur t t o c ond uct an in camera re view o f all doc ument s in the op en invest igat ion files t o d et er mine whet her an exe mpt ion ap plies. I n Day , t he po lice files in question i nvol ved a si ngle crim in al in vestigation. In the i

nstant case, there are still

pot entia ll y ove r 100 cas es in which t he invest igat ions a re ong oing . I t is po ssible t hat t her e ar e so me invest igat ions in w hic h p r o du ct io n o f t he da t a c o uld co mpr o mise an o ng o ing inve st iga t io n, ev en wit h a ll ident ify ing informat ion r eda ct ed. Ho weve r, we d o no t t hink suc h a sc enar io is likely in the major ity o f op en invest igat ions, nor will i t be as eas y to ident ify

wit nesse s in red act ed files as t he Gibso n affidavits sug ges t . T he fact t hat wit nesse s, vict ims and pe rp et ra t or s may all l ive in the sa me n eig hbo rho o d a nd at t en d t he sa me s ch o o ls d o es no t mea n t ha t t he sa fet y o f a w it ne ss co uld be co mpr o mise d if t he do cu men t s a r e r ele as ed . Bo t h p ar t ies ag r ee t ha t t he lo ca t io n o f t he cr ime an d a ll pe r so na l ide nt ifying in fo rmat io n a nd o t he r un iqu e id en t ifier s w ill be r ed ac t ed ; t he r efo r e, it wil l b e i mpossi ble to t ell wh

ere the crim

e occurred and what i

ndi vi dual s m ay have been

in volv ed i n the m aj ority of c ase s.1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

17

On rem and, the parties

should presum

e that all requested documents i

n the open in vestigations are to be produced, subj ect to the agreed redactions. The burden i s on the poli

ce ag en cie s t o de mo nst r at e o n a ca se - by- ca se ba sis sp ec ifica lly ho w a pa r t icu lar wit ne ss co uld be in da ng er o rho w a n ind ividua l inve st iga t io n c o uld be co mpr o mise d if a do cu men t is d isc lo se d in wh ich all id en t ifying in fo rmat io n ha s be en r ed ac t ed . Mo r eo ve r , an y affid av it s s ub mit t ed in sup po rt of a st at ut or y exempt ion must co nfor m to t he level o f spec ifi city r equ ired in Day . Ho weve r, we no t e t hat ou r su pr eme co ur t has indica t ed t hat while summary judg ment w ou ld be appr opri ate

wi th out in camera re view if the affidavits sho w wit h re aso nable sp ecificity why t he docum en ts f al l wi thi n the cl ai med ex em pti on, in camera re view is t he mos t effect ive way for t he pub l i c b ody

to obj ecti

ve l y dem onstra te that the ex em pti on cl ai med does , i

n f act, app l y . Illinois Education Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of E ducation , 204 Ill . 2d 456, 470-71, 791 N. E.2d 522, 531 (2 003). We re ver se t he o rd er s o f the circu it co ur t s gr ant ing summary jud gment in favor of t he pol i ce ag en ci es f or docu men ts i n open i n v esti ga ti on s. W e rem

an d f or th e p oli ce ag en ci es to review the fi

le s and determ

in e whi ch docum ents, if any , meet the statuto ry ex

em ptions ev en af ter the a greed redac tions are made. Th

ose docu men ts sh oul d then b e pres en

ted to the ci

rcui t court for an in camera ins pe ct io n t o de t er mine wh et he rt he ex emp t io ns do , in fa ct , ap pl y. Next , N ACDL c ont ends t hat t he circ uit co ur t s er re d in ho lding t hat t he face s in the photo graphic lin

eups are exe

mpt f rom di sclosure because thei r releas e would consti

tut e an unwa rr ant ed invas ion o f per so nal pr ivacy. N ACDL a rg ues t hat onc e all per so nal ident ify ing in form ation i s rem

oved from

the photogr aphs, the persons w ho typically

act as fi ll ers i n l in eups1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

18

will ha ve o nly a min imal p r iva cy int er es t in t he ph o t o gr ap hs. CP D a r gu es t ha t t he r e is a s t igma asso ciat ed w ith “mug sho t s” a nd t hat t he face s in the pho t og ra phs c ou ld be r eco gnized and i den tif i ed ev en i f al l pers onal i den tif y i ng i nf orma tion i s red acted. To det ermi

ne wh ether dis cl osure would constitute an unwa rranted in vasi on of personal pr iva cy, co ur t s t ak e in t o ac co un t ( 1) t he pla int iff’s int er es t in d isc lo su r e, ( 2) t he pu blic in t er es t in disclo sur e, (3 ) t he de gr ee o f invasion o f per so nal pr ivacy, and (4 ) t he ava ilabil ity o f alte rna t ive
means of obtai ni ng th e requ ested i nf orma tion . Lieber , 176 Il

l . 2d at 40 8-09, 6 80 N.E.2 d at 378 . NADC L’s int er est and t he pu blic inter est ar e es sent ially t he sa me. As p ar t of it s ana lysis o f the st ud y, N ACD L ne ed s t o as se ss t he qu alit y o f t he co mpo sit io n o f t he lineu ps in t he st ud y. T his info rmat io n is s ep ar at e a nd dis t inc t fr o m t he ide nt ifica t io n his t o ry and o t he rinfo rmat io n t ha t will be anal yzed f rom the repo rt d ata and inv estigation fi

les. A m eani ngful anal ysi s of the study must include a n asse ssment of t he lineups t hat wer e ac t ually used . Mo re ove r, t he ac t ual pho t og ra phs are the onl

y means av ail ab l e to rese arch

ers to deter

m i ne the c omp osi

tion of the l i ne ups th at were use d i n the study

. On the other han

d, the degree of i

nvasi on of personal

priv acy is in signifi cant. Fi rst, we r eje ct CP D’ s c ha r ac t er iza t io n o f t he ph o t o s a s “mu g s ho t s. ” T he pe r so ns w ho ac t as filler s in lineu ps may be po lice o ffice r s, ind ividua ls in ja il, o rciv ilians . T he r e is no wa y fo ran yo ne t o t ell by lo o kin g a t t he ph o t o gr ap hic lineu p w hic h c at eg o ry any g ive n ind ividua l falls int o wh en all i den tif y i ng i nf orma tion ha s b een redac ted. Sec ond, c i

vi l i an s an d poli ce of

f i cers who act as f

i l l ers have vol untaril y c onsented to have thei

r photo graphs v

ie wed by strangers and possi

bl y i ntroduced as e vidence in criminal cases a nd t her efo re can ha ve no expe ct at ion o f per so nal pr ivacy in the1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

19

pho t os . T he o nly conce ivable pr ivacy inter est at st ake is tha t of t he individuals in jail who ha ve no t ne ce ss ar ily co nse nt ed t o t he us e o f t he ir p ho t o gr ap hs in t he lineu ps . Ho we ve r , ev en if it woul d b e p oss i

bl e to d eterm

i ne wh i ch f i l l ers are i nd i vi dua l s w ho a re or were i n j ai l , th e l i ke l i hood th at s om eon e v i ewi n g th e p h otogr ap h s wi l l re cog n ize a p h oto a n d l i n k th at p er son to a s ep arate cas e in which he o r she may be a sus pec t or may have bee n char ged is remo t e; t her efo re t he degree of i

nvasi on of personal

priv acy does not o utweigh

the remai ni ng f actors. Thus, we con cl ude tha t the rel ea se of the photos wi

th a l l i de nti f y i ng i nf orm ati on r edac ted doe s n ot constitute an unwarran

ted inv asion of personal

priv acy . We al so note t hat the Evans to n Poli ce Dep ar t ment ha s re leased t he pho t og ra phic lineups wit h t he pho t os intac t and o nly the ident ify ing in form ation redacted. Fi na l l y , NA CD L c onte

nds th at the c i rcu i t cou rts e rre d i n h ol di ng tha t the prod uc ti on of documen ts from the pol

ic e fi le s i n cl osed cases outside of

the report data would create an undue bu r de n o n t he po lice ag en cie s. NA CD L a r gu es t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t s u nd er st at ed t he pu blic i nte res t i n d i sc l osu re of the rec ords wh i l e overv al ui ng the bu rde n th at re da cti on woul d i m pos e on the pol i ceag en ci es . CP D c onte

nds th at N A CD L is req

ue sti ng the en ti re i nv es ti ga tory f i l e f or eac h cas e, including many do cument s t hat do not even r elat e t o id ent ifi cat ion p ro ced ur es, and states that redactin

g al l of thes e docum

ents woul d be a massi ve un dertaki ng. Moreove

r, CPD ar gue s t hat if i

t is req uire d t o p ro duc e t he sa me informat ion fo r t he o pen inves t igat ions, t he burden wi ll in cl ude the redaction of the

report data in

addi tion to t he i

nve stigati ve f il es. At oral argum en t, couns el f or CPD e sti

mated that redacti

ng th ese f i l es wi l l take ap proxi matel y 150 h ours or 2 0 p er son

n el da y s. A l so, th e i

n di v i du al re sp on si b l e f or m ak i n g th e redac ti on s wi l l

n ee d to1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

20

consult with detect iv

es on a case-by-case basi

s. NACDL responds t hat it is onl y requesting those docum en ts i n the i nv esti gation f i l es that pertai

n to ey ewi tnes s iden tif i cation, e.g. , poli ce records that d irectly

describe the l

in eups and photo arrays or show pr ior cont act bet ween the eyewi tness an d th e s us pe ct. NA CD L c on ten dsth at th es e rec ord s wi l l

pri mari l y b e f oun d i n l i n eu p r ep orts and sup pl em en tary reports. A s a n i n i ti al matte r, w e n ote th at F OI A con tai n s a sp ec i f i c req ui re men t f or th e p ar ty seeki ng to clai m the un due burden e

xem ption. “Bef

ore inv oking thi s exem ption, the publ

ic body sh al l ex ten d to th e p er son mak i n g th e req ue st a n opp ortu n i ty to co n f er wi th i t i n an atte m pt to re duc e t he r equ est t o mana gea ble pr op or t ions. ” 5 I LCS 140 /3 (f) ( West 200 6) . O ur re view o f the
r ec o r d d o es no t dis clo se an y evid en ce t ha t t he po lice ag en cie s s o ug ht t o co nfe rwit h N ACD L in an attempt to r educe the request prior to t he ci rcuit court’s ruli

ng that the undue b

urden exem ption appl

ie d to certain docum

ents. There i s al so no evidence that the poli ce agenci es contacted NACDL to discuss ways to reduce t he request bef ore seekin

g to in voke the undue bu rde n e xe m ption b ef ore th i s c ourt. CPD s

tate s i n i ts b ri ef tha t the bu rde n on the ag en cy “ ca nn ot be alle via t ed by na rr o win g t he r eq ue st , ” h o we ve r , it do es no t pr o vid e a ny su pp o r t fo rt his assertion. In f

act, NACDL notes i

n i ts reply bri ef that the poli

ce agenci es i nvol ved i n thi s appeal ne ve rco nfe rr ed wit h N ACD L r eg ar din g t he ir c laim t ha t co mplia nc e w o uld be un du ly bu r de nso me and ne ver at t empt ed t o e xplo re whet her t her e wo uld be a ny way to sat isfy NACDL’s r equ est by produci ng on l y the re l ev an

t portion s of

the i nv esti gation f i l es. F or thi s rea son a

l one, i t appea rs that t he polic e agenci

es hav e not complie d with F OIA and c ann ot cl ai m the un due burden1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

21

exempt ion. Ho weve r, we w ill st ill co nsider whet her t he circ uit co ur t er re d in det er mini ng t hat t he b urden on th e a gen ci es outw ei gh ed th e pub l i c i

n terest. In ord er f or th e ex em pti on to ap pl y , c om pl i an ce m us t b e u n dul y b urden som

e, th ere m us t be no wa y t o na rr o w t he r eq ue st , an d t he bu r de n o n t he pu blic b o dy mu st o ut we igh t he pu blic in terest in the i

nf ormation. 5 ILCS 140/3(f ) (West 2006). As di scussed ab ove, the police ag en ci es h av e n ev er atte m pte d to s ee

i f th e req ue st c an b e n ar row ed , a n d N A CD L h as sta ted i n i ts br ief t ha t mo st o f t he ad dit io na l info rmat io n it is r eq ue st ing fr o m t he po lice files ca n be fo un d in two r eport s. NACDL

further stated that, with dia logue b etween the parties, i t beli eves agr eement s co uld be r eac hed t o na rr ow t he r ange of d oc ument s t o be re dac t ed. Ind eed , t he Eva nst on P olice D epa rt ment w as a ble to re ach a n agr eement wit h NACD L t o p ro duc e all of t he request ed docu men

ts with redact ions. Moreo ver, the public in terest at st ake in obtain

in g these docum en ts i s si gni f i can t, both f or the pe opl e of

Il l i noi s an d f or people across the coun try w ho are considerin

g the resul

ts of the Ill

in ois study . Wrongful

convi ctions on the b asi s of m

is taken eyewit ness ide nt ifi

cat ion impo se a huge co st on s oc iety in add itio n t o t he co st impose d o n t he individual who is wro ngfully convict ed. One s uch c os t t hat has no t been highlight ed in t he aff ida vi ts or brief s i s that if the wrong person is

convi cted, t he actual

perpetrat or is still

at large and conti nues to pose a danger to so ci ety. If a n exam in ation of the data used i

n the study con f i rms th at the re sul

ts w ere correc t, i t al l owsres ea

rch ers to f ocu s on othe r pos si bl e m eth odsof
r efo rm fo ride nt ifica t io n p r o ce du r es . I f, ho we ve r , an ex amina t io n o f t he da t a d isc lo se s fla ws in the study meth odol ogy or de si gn , re f orm base d on the se que nti al , dou bl e-bl i nd i de nti f i ca ti on procedures is stil

l a possibil ity in Ill in ois, as wel

l as i n other states t hat have been considerin

g such1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

22

reform. As em

phasi zed i n the af fi davi t subm itted by Steblay , the contro versi

al resul ts of the study cann ot be an al yzed wi thout access to the iden

tif ic ation hi stories contain

ed i n the poli ce i nv esti gation f i l es. The impor t ance of t he pu blic inter est at st ake is furt her demo nst ra t ed by an amicus curiae bri ef f il ed i n support of NACDL b

y: Th e Innocen ce Network; The Nort ham pto n (Mass .) Police Departmen

t; Captain Ken neth Patenaude of

the Nort ham

pto n Poli ce Departmen

t; Sergeant Paul Ca rrol l (reti red ), f orm erl y of the Ch i cago Pol i ceDe pa rtm en t; S teven D. P en rod, De pa rtm en t of Ps y ch ol ogy , J oh n Ja y Col l eg e of Cr i m i n al Ju sti ce ; D. Mi ch ae l Risi n ger, S eton

Hal l Un i v er si ty Sch ool of La w; Jon B. Goul d, Cha i r, In noc en ceCom m i ss i on f or Vi rgi ni a a nd Di rector, C en

ter f or Jus t ice, Law & So ciet y, Ge or ge M aso n Univer sity; Ma ur ice Po ssley, fr eelanc e jou rna list; and Laura Spi nne y, f reela nce j ournali

st. The bri ef argues

that without t he n

ecessary sci entif ic review o f t his s t ud y, w hic h r eq uir es ac ce ss t o t he r eq ue st ed do cu men t s, t he de ve lo pme nt o f r es ea r ch in this crucial

fi eld wi ll be ham pered, p rog ress in

deali ng with the problem

of mi staken eyewi

tness ide ntif ic ation wi ll be stal le d, and, even

more tragical

ly , this stalled progress wil

l l ead to additional wrongful convi

ctions based on erro neous eyewi tness identi fi

cations. CP D c i tesseve ral ca se s i n s upp ort of i ts a rgu men t tha t the un due bu rde n e xe m ption app lies. CP D’s r eliance o n t hese cas es is misplace d. In Farley v. Wor ley , 215 W. Va. 412, 424, 59 9 S . E . 2d 83 5, 84 7 ( 20 04 ) , t he co ur t he ld t ha t in r es po nse t o a p r o pe rFO I A r eq ue st , “apu blic bod y has a d ut y to re dac t or seg re gat e exe mpt fro m non- exempt informat ion co nt ained w ithin t he publi c recor d(s) respo nsi

ve to t he FOIA request and to discl ose t he nonexem

pt inf ormation unless suc h seg re gat ion o r r eda ct ion wo uld impo se * ** a n unr eas ona bly hi gh bur den o r e xpens e. ” T he1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

23

co ur t in Farley

requi red the pub l i c b ody

to provide th e reda

cted m aterial i n re spon se to the

FOIA reque st. Farley , 2 15 W. Va. at 425 , 5 99 S .E .2 d at 848 . I n ACLU Founda tion of Northern Cali fornia v. Deu kmejian, 32 Cal . 3d 440, 453, 651 P. 2d 822, 830, 186 Cal. Rptr. 235, 243 (1982), t he court held tha t t he b urden of se gregating ex

em pt from n onexem pt material

on 100 i nd ex ca rds wa s s ub sta nti al an d the u ti l i ty of di sc l osu re wasque sti

ona bl e w he re th e d el eti on of pe rs ona l i de nti f i ers woul d m ake i t i m pos si bl e f or th e a ppe l l an t to l ea rn whether a

pa rticul ar p ers on had be en i m properl y l i sted a s an

ass oci ate of

a cri m i na l sus pect. A req ues t t hat is ove rly bro ad a nd r equ ires t he pu blic body t o lo cat e, re view, re dac t and arrange for inspection a vast quantity of m aterial that is l

argely unnecessary

to the appellan

ts’ purpos e con sti

tutes an und ue b urden . American Federation of Government Employees , Local 2782 v. United States Department of Commerce , 9 07 F .2 d 20 3, 208 -0 9 ( D. C. Cir. 199 0) . T he re que st s at issue in American Federationwould ha ve requi red the pub l i c b ody

to loca te ev ery chronological

off ic e fi le and correspondence f

il e, in ternal an d external , for every

branch off ic e, staf f off i ce, etc. and the

i nf orma tion had li ttle or n othi ng to do wi

th the stated purpose . American Federation , 907 F.2d at 209. In the ins tant case, the request specif ic ally target s the poli

ce fi le s f or those ca se s th at w ere us ed i n th e s tudy an d the i nf orm ati on r eq ue ste d i s e ss en

ti al to a mean i ngf ul revi ew of

that stud y . We do not agree with the ci rcuit court t hat “sev

eral we eks of f

ull -tim e work by [CPD] pe r so nne l wh o ne ed t o po ss es s a hig h le ve l o f kn o wle dg e a nd so ph ist ica t io n” is s uffic ien t ly bur dens ome t o o ut weigh t he impor t ant public int er est at st ake her e. The re sult s o f this st udy have garn ered n ati onwi de atten tion on an i ssue of vi tal i m portanc e to our cri

m i na l j ustice sy stem .1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

24

Mo re ove r, t he circ uit co ur t ’s o rd er pr esu med t hat t he po lice age ncies w ou ld have t o r eda ct t he en tire i nv esti gatory f i l e i n e ach cas e. NA

CDL ha s state d tha

t it does not ne ed ac ces s to eve

ry docum en t i n each f i l e. It has pr opos ed wa y s to n ar row th e req ue st a n d e x pr es se d a wi l l i n gn es s to ent er into dialog ue w ith t he po lice age ncies in an at t empt t o fu rt her re duc e t he bur den. We conclude that t he burden on the police agenci es of redacting any

iden tify in g in formation i s not so ex ces si ve that i t outwei ghs

the v i tal pub l i c i ntere st i n the di scl

osure of thes e docum

en ts. The re for e, we r ever se t he o rd er s o f the circu it co ur t s ho lding t hat pr od uct ion o f the dat a fro m the in vestigative

fi le s i n cl osed cases i s undul

y b urdensom e. We also reject CPD’s argum ent that product ion of

the data from the i

nve stigati ve f il es i n open case s would constitute an undue bur den. We re mand fo r t he po lice age ncies t o p ro duc e t he r equ est ed d oc ument s fro m the i n v esti ga ti v e f i l es i n open an d c l ose d c as es

wi th th e a gr ee d r edac ti on s af

ter con f er ri n g w i th NACD L t o r eac h a final agr eement on na rr ow ing t he r equ est t o t hos e do cument s t hat ar e r elevant t o it s a na lysis o f t he st ud y. III. CONCLUSION Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns, we affir m t he cir cu it co ur t s’ gr an t o f su mmar y jud gme nt in favo r o f NACDL re quir ing pr od uct ion o f the re po rt dat a in the clos ed c ase s. We re ver se t he ci rcui t courts’ g

ran t of su m mary j udgm en t in f avor of the pol

i ce de partm en ts protecti

ng th e report da ta a n d i n v esti ga ti v e f i l es i n th e op en ca se s a n d r em an d f or f ur th er pr oce ed i n gscon siste n t wi th this opini on. We reverse

the ci rcuit courts’ grant of sum ma ry j udgme nt in fav or o f the pol

ic e de pa r t men t s p r o t ec t ing t he inve st iga t ive files in t he clo se d c as es . Fina lly, w e r ev er se t he cir cu it1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

25

co ur t s’ gr ant of su mmary judgment in favor of t he po lice dep ar t ments pr ot ect ing t he face s in the phot ogr aphi c li

neups. No. 1-08-2 073, Aff

irm ed in part and reversed in

part ; cause reman

ded with directions. No. 1-08-3 414, Aff

irm ed in part and reversed in

part ; cause reman

ded with directions. O’B RIEN a

nd N EVILL E, JJ., c oncu

r.1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

26 REPORTE R OF DECISION S - ILLINOI S APPELLATE COURT

(Front Sheet to be A

tt ached to Each case)

________________________________________________________________________ NATION AL ASSOC IATION OF

CRIMINA

L DEFEN SE LAW

YERS, Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l an t, v. CHICAG O POLICE DEPA RTMENT, Defe ndan t-Appell ee.

_________________________________________ NATION AL ASSOC IATION OF

CRIMINA

L DEFEN SE LAW

YERS, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, v. CHIEF OF THE JOLIET POL ICE DEPA RTMENT, Defe ndan t-Appell ee.

_____________________________________________________________________________ Nos. 1-08-2073 and 1-08-3414 (co nsolida ted) Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rs t Di stri ct, F ourth Di vi si on February 25, 2010

_____________________________________________________________________________

JU STI CEGA

LL A GH ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t. O’B RIEN a

nd N EVILL E, JJ., c oncu

r.

_____________________________________________________________________________1-08-2073 & 1-08-3414, consolidated

27 Ap pe al f r o m t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Honorable Mary A

nne Mason, Judge Presi

din g. Honorable B obbi

N. Petrungaro, Judge Presidin g.

_____________________________________________________________________________ For APPELLANT, Roderi ck MacA rthur Justice Cen

ter, No rthwestern Uni

versi ty School of

Law, Ch i cago, IL ( Lo ck e E . Bo wma n, o f co un se l) For APPE LLEE - C HICA GO POL ICE DEP ARTM

ENT , Cor pora ti on C oun se l

of the Ci ty of Chicag o, Chicag o, IL ( Mar a S. Geo rg es, Benna Rut h So lomo n, Myr iam Zrec zny Kaspe r, Su zanne M. Lo o se , o f co un se l)