NIPAS PAC Ruling

1. April 6, 2021
Via electronic mail
Mr. Zach Watson
zachwatson13@gmail.com
Via electronic mail
Mr. Mallory A. Milluzzi
Partner
Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606
mamilluzzi@ktjlaw.com
RE: FOIA Request for Review – 2020 PAC 65941
Dear Mr. Watson and Ms. Milluzzi:
This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2018)). For the reasons stated below, the
Public Access Bureau concludes that the Vernon Hills Police Department (Department)
improperly withheld the roster responsive to Mr. Zachary Watson's November 3, 2020, FOIA
request.
On that date, Mr. Watson submitted an eight-part FOIA request to the Department
seeking, in relevant part, copies of:
[1] The most up-to-date records showing the leadership of
the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System (NIPAS) and its various
teams, including but not limited to the President, Vice President,
Secretary, Treasurer, NIPAS Systems Managers, Communications
Coordinator, the Commanders of the Emergency Services Team
(EST) and the Mobile Field Force (MFF), and the Team Leader of
the Bicycle Response Unit (BRU). [and]
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS
KWAME RAOUL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

2. Mr. Zachary Watson
Ms. Mallory Milluzzi
April 6, 2021
Page 2
[2] The most up-to-date rosters of officers that compose the
EST, MFF, and BRU, including officers' names, badge numbers,
and home municipal police departments.[1]
On November 10, 2020, the Department responded to Mr. Watson's request. In
relevant part, the Department provided him with a copy of a record showing the leadership of
NIPAS except for the BRU Team Leader, and denied the second part of his request pursuant to
sections 7(1)(d)(i), 7(1)(d)(vi), and 7(1)(v) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(i), (1)(d)(vi), (1)(v)
(West 2018), as amended by Public Acts 101-434, effective January 1, 2020; 101-452, effective
January 1, 2020; 101-455, effective August 23, 2019). On December 3, 2020, Mr. Watson
submitted the above-referenced Request for Review disputing the Department's denial. On
December 7, 2020, Mr. Watson notified this office: "To be more specific about our concerns
with the Vernon Hills FOIA record, we believe that the refusal to name the badge numbers,
home departments and names of NIPAS officers violates" a determination issued by this office,
Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630, issued January 23, 2014, "regarding the use of
exemption" section 7(1)(d)(vi).2
On December 14, 2020, this office forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to
the Department and asked it to provide unredacted copies of the contested records for this
office's confidential review, and a detailed written explanation of the applicability of sections
7(1)(d)(i), 7(1)(d)(vi), and 7(1)(v) of FOIA. On December 23, 2020, this office received those
materials, including two versions of its written response: a complete version for this office's
confidential review and a redacted version for forwarding to Mr. Watson. On December 29,
2020, this office forwarded a copy of the Department's non-confidential response to Mr. Watson.
On that same date, Mr. Watson submitted a reply. On January 6, 2021, the Department
submitted an unsolicited response to Mr. Watson's reply. Additionally, on January 7, 2021,
NIPAS submitted an unsolicited response to Mr. Watson's Request for Review.
DETERMINATION
"All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be
open to inspection or copying." 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2018); see also Southern Illinoisan v.
Illinois Dept. of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 415 (2006). A public body "has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence" that a record is exempt from disclosure. 5 ILCS
140/1.2 (West 2018).
1
E-mail from Zach Watson to whom it may concern (November 3, 2020).
2
E-mail from Zachary Watson to Lorraine Dunham (December 7, 2020).

3. Mr. Zachary Watson
Ms. Mallory Milluzzi
April 6, 2021
Page 3
Section 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA
Section 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA exempts from disclosure:
Records in the possession of any public body created in the
course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law
enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes,
but only to the extent that disclosure would:
* * *
(vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law
enforcement personnel or any other person[.]
NIPAS "is a joint venture of suburban municipal police departments in the
Chicago metropolitan area" that provide member agencies with "assistance for any situation its
command staff believes the agency cannot handle with its own resources."3
In its first, non-
confidential response to this office, the Department argued that the roster of officer names, badge
numbers, and home police departments is exempt under section 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA because
"given the specific and unique threat to officers involved in NIPAS and officers' involvement in
public protests, releasing officers' names and badge numbers would endanger an officer and his
or her family's physical safety."4
The Department submitted a confidential affidavit from NIPAS
President Thomas Weitzel and asserted that it contains "a detailed and comprehensive
assessment of both the general and the specific danger to NIPAS officers and their families that
would be caused by the release of information identifying the individual NIPAS officers to the
public."5
The Department further contended:
We are at a unique time in society where police officers, and
specifically police officers charged with keeping the peace during
times of public protest, have become the target of threats and
crimes. It does not matter that home addresses are not being
provided; in today's internet age all anyone needs is a name to
discover where someone lives, their family members and other
personal details, all of which can and has been used to target and
3
Northern Illinois Police Alarm System, https://www.nipas.org (last visited February 4, 2020).
4
Letter from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Klein Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky, Assistant
Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (December 23, 2020), at [3].
5
Letter from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Klein Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky, Assistant
Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (December 23, 2020), at [3].

4. Mr. Zachary Watson
Ms. Mallory Milluzzi
April 6, 2021
Page 4
threaten police officers and their family due to police officers
performing their duties.[6]
Moreover, the Department stated that Mr. Watson has stated on Twitter that he intends to reveal
the identities of the NIPAS officers, and argued that disclosing the records to Mr. Watson would
result in disclosure to people who have made death threats against those officers.
In his reply, Mr. Watson again referenced the Public Access Bureau's non-binding
determination in 2013 PAC 26630, in which this office determined that a police department
failed to demonstrate that records regarding police officers who were working on specific days,
including roll call, log sheets, and work schedules, were exempt from disclosure under section
7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630, at 5. Mr. Watson noted that the
determination states that "information identifying non-undercover police officers is ordinarily
not exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(d)(iv)." Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630,
at 3. In that matter, the police department had concealed the identity of a police officer who
fatally wounded an assisted living resident while attempting to subdue him. Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC
Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630, at 2. Although the police department demonstrated that members of the
public had made violent threats against the police department and its officers as a result of the
incident, this office concluded that the police department had failed to prove that disclosure of
the records would endanger officers' lives or physical safety "beyond the risks that are inherent in
police work." Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630, at 4. The determination further
explained: "Facing threats, at times violent, is an unfortunate aspect of public service for many
public officials, whether engaged in law enforcement or not. Despite such threats, the public's
ability to identify its public officials fosters transparency, efficiency, and accountability." Ill.
Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630, at 4. With this language, this office was not weighing the
public interest in disclosure as a factor in the section 7(1)(d)(vi) analysis, but instead explaining
that the exemption cannot be read to mean that public bodies may withhold routine records of
public employees' and officials' names whenever threats are made because of the risks attendant
to performing public duties.
In response to Mr. Watson's reply, the Department argued that the NIPAS officers
are at "a heightened risk" because "this specialized duty is beyond the general inherent job duties
of police officers" in that it is "specifically tied to protests."7
The Department stated that "[i]n
the past few months, NIPAS members have been injured at protests due to protesters using
fireworks and throwing bricks at officers and recent protests have attracted groups affiliated with
6
Letter from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Klein Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky, Assistant
Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (December 23, 2020), at [3].
7
E-mail from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Partner – Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky,
Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (January 6, 2021).

5. Mr. Zachary Watson
Ms. Mallory Milluzzi
April 6, 2021
Page 5
ANTIFA and other organizations that specifically seek to harm officers."8
The Department
argued that an officer's assignment to NIPAS, while not an undercover role, is nonetheless "more
akin to an undercover assignment rather than a regular police assignment."9
The Department's
explanation for this claim is that "NIPAS officers do not have their names on their uniforms, just
roster numbers, which allows complaints (to which there have been none) to be tracked but also
intentionally protect the officer's identity."10
The Department's argument that section 7(1)(d)(vi) applies to the roster because
NIPAS officers face a heightened risk similar to that of undercover officers is unpersuasive.
Unlike undercover officers, whose physical safety would be starkly compromised if their true
identities as police officers were revealed to the targets of their investigations, NIPAS officers
openly interact with the public in full uniform. Any decision by NIPAS to provide only roster
numbers on officers' uniforms does not support the assertion that their names are exempt from
disclosure in response to a request for records under FOIA. NIPAS supports its member police
departments' efforts. It is hardly uncommon for police officers to participate in public events
that are the subject of controversy or opposition. In 2012, the Chicago Police Department (CPD)
reported assigning 3,100 CPD officers, in addition to officers from other agencies that are not
members of NIPAS, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit that triggered widespread
demonstrations.11
Adopting the Department's rationale for the applicability of section 7(1)(d)(vi)
would permit public bodies to conceal the identities of all of the many thousands of officers who
police protests or are involved in an incident that generates strong criticism.
There is no indication that the General Assembly intended the section 7(1)(d)(vi)
exemption to broadly apply to the identities of uniformed police officers performing their public
duties in public settings. As was the case in Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 26630, Mr.
Watson's FOIA request does not seek home addresses or other private information that could be
used to target particular officers. Although Mr. Watson may intend to publish the roster and
although it may be possible to use a name to find additional information about a person on the
internet, the assertion that disclosure of the basic information in the roster would endanger the
8
E-mail from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Partner – Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky,
Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (January 6, 2021).
9
E-mail from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Partner – Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky,
Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (January 6, 2021).
10
E-mail from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Partner – Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky,
Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (January 6, 2021).
11
Lauren Petty, Hundreds of Outside Cops Helping Chicago for NATO Summit, NBC 5 NEWS
CHICAGO (May 16, 2012, 1:44 p.m.), https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/hundreds-outside-cops-helping-
chicago-for-nato-summit/1956609/

6. Mr. Zachary Watson
Ms. Mallory Milluzzi
April 6, 2021
Page 6
life or physical safety of NIPAS officers is speculative. Because NIPAS officers perform public
duties as police officers in a manner dissimilar to undercover officers, and because the roster
contains basic rather than sensitive information, section 7(1)(d)(vi) does not permit the
Department to withhold its roster.
Section 7(1)(v) of FOIA
Section 7(1)(v) of FOIA exempts from disclosure:
Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response
policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond
to potential attacks upon a community's population or systems,
facilities, or installations, the destruction or contamination of
which would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or
safety of the community, but only to the extent that disclosure
could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the
measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the
public. Information exempt under this item may include such
things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of
personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication
systems or protocols, or to tactical operations.
In its non-confidential response in this matter, the Department stated that the
NIPAS roster is exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(v) because "[r]evealing the identities
of individual NIPAS officers involved in the different NIPAS teams would interfere with
response policies and plans of member agencies."12
The Department's confidential response
included three more sentences regarding the applicability of section 7(1)(v).
By its plain language, the section 7(1)(v) exemption applies to vulnerability
assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans themselves; it does not encompass
tangentially related records. The NIPAS roster is not a vulnerability assessment, security
measure, or response policy or plan within the scope of section 7(1)(v).
Accordingly, this office determines that the Department did not sustain its burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the NIPAS roster is exempt from disclosure
under section 7(1)(d)(vi) or section 7(1)(v) of FOIA. To remedy its improper denial, this office
asks the Department to provide Mr. Watson with an unredacted copy of the roster.
12
E-mail from Mallory A. Milluzzi, Partner – Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd., to Jane Sternecky,
Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau (January 6, 2021).

7. Mr. Zachary Watson
Ms. Mallory Milluzzi
April 6, 2021
Page 7
The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does
not require the issuance of a binding opinion. If you have any questions, you may contact me by
mail at the Chicago address listed on the first page of this letter or by e-mail at
jsternecky@atg.state.il.us. This letter serves to close this file.
Very truly yours,
JANE STERNECKY
Assistant Attorney General
Public Access Bureau
65941 f 71dvi improper 71v improper pd
cc: Via electronic mail
Ms. Lisa Straza
FOIA Officer
Vernon Hills Police Department Record Division
740 Lakeview Parkway
Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061
vhrecords@vhills.org