Court Opinion

ID: 9889409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 14:05:47.062008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:11.772891
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 211656

                                                                                     FIRST DISTRICT,
                                                                                      FIRST DIVISION
                                                                                       October 10, 2023

     No. 1-21-1656

      OILY THOMAS,                                         )      Appeal from the
                                                           )      Circuit Court of
             Plaintiff-Appellant,                          )      Cook County.
                                                           )
      v.                                                   )      No. 2019 CH 06865
                                                           )
      THE COUNTY OF COOK,                                  )      Honorable
                                                           )      Sophia H. Hall,
             Defendant-Appellee.                           )      Judge Presiding.

            JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
            Presiding Justice Lavin and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                                OPINION

¶1          For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶2                                         I. BACKGROUND

¶3          In 1992, plaintiff Oily Thomas (Thomas) was convicted of first degree murder after the

     June 4, 1991, shooting of Edward McComb and sentenced to 75 years’ imprisonment. See People

     v. Thomas, 364 Ill. App. 3d 91, 93 (2006). On January 14, 2019, pursuant to the Freedom of

     Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2018)), Thomas sent a letter to defendant

     County of Cook (County), requesting all postmortem photographs, autopsy photographs, and X-

     rays of McComb from the County’s medical examiner.

¶4          On January 17, 2019, the County responded, through Registered Health Information

     Administrator Mary E. Marik, that it was in possession of 38 autopsy photographs, but 35 of the

     photographs were “exempt from disclosure” under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because they depicted

     “a decedent postmortem” and constituted an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The
     No. 1-21-1656

     County explained that such an invasion of privacy “means the disclosure of information that is

     highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy

     outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.” Citing Public Access

     Opinion No. 10-003, the County stated that “courts have determined that autopsy photographs are

     records that are highly personal and their release would be objectionable to reasonable persons.”

¶5           On March 22, 2019, Thomas challenged the denial of access to 35 of the requested

     photographs, claiming that “a forensic examination of the requested documents *** is expected to

     show that the objective evidence from the documents irrefutably impeaches the testimony of [the

     eye]witnesses.” Thomas also asserted that “the personal privacy of the McComb family *** is far

     outweighed by the reasonable claim that [the] records could have an innocent man released from

     prison.”

¶6           On June 5, 2019, Thomas filed a complaint alleging that defendant violated FOIA by

     denying his requests for all 38 of the autopsy photographs. Thomas alleged that the violation was

     done willfully and intentionally or otherwise in bad faith and requested declaratory and injunctive

     relief, attorney fees, and penalties.

¶7           On June 12, 2019, Thomas submitted a second FOIA request for “all of the records and

     physical objects, without limitation” related to the death of McComb. 1

¶8           The County filed its response to Thomas’s complaint on August 22, 2019, in which it again

     asserted that 35 of the autopsy photographs were “exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 ILCS

     140/7(1)(c)” because they “depicted a decedent postmortem.”

¶9           The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Thomas argued, inter alia, that the

     County’s “refusal to produce the 35 photographs was willful and intentional or otherwise in bad

            Thomas’s second request is not a part of the record on appeal but is quoted in an email from Marik
             1

     to Thomas’s attorney, attached as an exhibit to the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

                                                       -2-
       No. 1-21-1656

       faith” and that the County’s denial “subjects the [County[ to statutory penalties.” The County

       responded, in relevant part, that, pursuant to section 7(1)(c), it had “complied with its FOIA

       obligations and properly withheld Edward McComb’s postmortem photographs” and that there

       was no “willful and intentional violation of FOIA” under section 11(j).

¶ 10          On December 10, 2020, the trial court granted Thomas’s motion for summary judgment in

       part and ordered the production of all 38 autopsy photographs. The court also granted the County’s

       motion in part, finding that “the record is devoid of any evidence of willful or intentional conduct

       by Defendant in withholding the phot[o]s or that Defendant otherwise acted in bad faith in

       withholding the requested autopsy photographs as exempt under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c).”

¶ 11          Thomas filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of penalties, arguing that the record

       contains “evidence of willful or intentional conduct in not producing the requested materials, or

       other evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendant.” Specifically, Thomas alleged that “[t]he

       correspondence of record in this case shows that the defendant consciously and deliberately

       (willfully and intentionally) refused to turn over the requested documents.”

¶ 12          At the August 25, 2021, hearing on Thomas’s motion for reconsideration, the County

       argued that the medical examiner properly denied Thomas’s request, based on the privacy interest

       exemption. The County acknowledged that there was a “balancing test,” but argued that it was not

       required to produce the photographs simply because Thomas disagreed with the results of the test.

       The County also argued that knowingly raising an exemption could not constitute a willful and

       intentional violation of FOIA, even if the exemption was later determined to be inapplicable.

       Thomas’s motion to reconsider was denied.

¶ 13                                            II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14          Thomas argues that the trial court’s finding that the County did not “willful[ly] and

       intentional[ly]” fail to comply with FOIA or otherwise act in bad faith constituted an erroneous

                                                      -3-
       No. 1-21-1656

       interpretation of section 11(j) of FOIA. The County argues that the trial court’s finding was not

       against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the County reasonably believed that the

       withheld photographs were exempt under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA.

¶ 15          Section 11(j) of FOIA states in relevant part: “If the court determines that a public body

       willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act, or otherwise acted in bad faith, the court

       shall also impose upon the public body a civil penalty of not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000

       for each occurrence.” (Emphasis added.); 5 ILCS 140/11(j) (West 2018). “ ‘To warrant the

       imposition of a civil penalty under section 11(j), the public body not only must have intentionally

       failed to comply with the FOIA but must have done so deliberately, by design, and with a dishonest

       purpose.’ ” Edgar County Watchdogs v. Joliet Township, 2023 IL App (3d) 210520, ¶ 30 (quoting

       Williams v. Bruscato, 2021 IL App (2d) 190971, ¶ 14).

¶ 16          A trial court’s finding that a public body willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith failed to

       comply with FOIA is reviewed under the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, “regardless

       of whether the underlying facts are disputed.” Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District

       205, 2012 IL App (2d) 110879, ¶ 48. A trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the

       evidence “only when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when findings appear to be

       unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence.” Judgment Services Corp. v. Sullivan, 321 Ill.

       App. 3d 151, 154 (2001).

¶ 17          In this case, the trial court found that the County did not willfully, intentionally, and in bad

       faith fail to comply with FOIA, stating that the record was entirely “devoid” of any evidence of

       such conduct. In denying Thomas’s motion to reconsider, the court further explained that the

       County did not act willfully, intentionally, or in bad faith “through its conduct with respect to the

       response to the request and the conduct in raising an exemption which was presented to the Court.”

       We agree.

                                                       -4-
       No. 1-21-1656

¶ 18           Although the argument was ultimately rejected by the trial court, the County reasonably

       asserted that the autopsy photographs were exempt from FOIA disclosure obligations under

       section 7(1)(c). This section exempts the following from disclosure under FOIA:

               “Personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would

               constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is

               consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. ‘Unwarranted

               invasion of personal privacy’ means the disclosure of information that is highly personal

               or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy

               outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.” 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c).

¶ 19           In support of the claimed exemption, the County cited Public Access Opinion No. 10-003

       (2010         Ill.       Att’y        Gen.         Pub.         Access         Op.         10-003,

       https://foiapac.ilag.gov/content/pdf/opinions/2010/2010-003.pdf (last visited Sept. 29, 2023)

       [https://perma.cc/U7AL-V6CC]). “While Attorney General Opinions are not binding on the

       courts, a well-reasoned opinion of the Attorney General is entitled to considerable weight ***.”

       Burris v. White, 232 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2009); 5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2018). In Public Access Opinion

       No. 10-003, the Attorney General concluded that, based on section 7(1)(c) of FOIA, “the release

       of the post-mortem photographs” of decedents to newspaper reporters “would constitute an

       unwarranted invasion of the surviving family members’ personal privacy.” 2010 Ill. Att’y Gen.

       Pub. Access Op. 10-003, at 11. The Attorney General noted that “courts have determined that

       autopsy photographs are records that are highly personal and their release would be objectionable

       to reasonable persons.” Id. at 9.

¶ 20           In reaching its opinion, the Attorney General relied on National Archives & Records Adm’n

       v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004). In Favish, the United States Supreme Court held that a deceased

       person’s family members have a privacy interest in preventing the disclosure of the deceased’s

                                                      -5-
       No. 1-21-1656

       death-scene photographs that could be properly considered exempt under federal FOIA exemption

       7(C) (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (2000)), which excuses from disclosure records that “ ‘could

       reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ ” Id. at 168-71

       (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (2000)). The Supreme Court explained that “[f]amily members

       have a personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwarranted public

       exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek

       to accord to the deceased person who was once their own.” Id. at 168.

¶ 21          In the instant case, the record does not support Thomas’s assertion that the County’s

       objection to releasing the autopsy photographs was motivated by bad faith. Therefore, the trial

       court properly denied Thomas’s request for civil penalties.

¶ 22                                       III. CONCLUSION

¶ 23          For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 24          Affirmed.

                                                       -6-
No. 1-21-1656

                 Thomas v. County of Cook, 2023 IL App (1st) 211656

Decision Under Review:    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 19-CH-6865;
                          the Hon. Sophia H. Hall, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                 Robert L. Caplan, of Clarendon Hills, for appellant.
for
Appellant:

Attorneys                 Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Cathy McNeil
for                       Stein, Silvia Mercado Masters, and Prathima Yeddanapudi,
Appellee:                 Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

                                         -7-