Thursday, March 26, 2009

WPD denies FOIA request (2/18 at USPS)

On February 18th at about noon there was a significant police response to the Post Office in Woodstock. Two officers and a sergeant were there, and a third officer was driving through the parking lot behind Walgreen's. See the article written that day by scrolling through the February postings or just search for "Post Office" on this site.

Clearly, something was going on.

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed with the police department and promptly denied, with two reasons cited:

1) "Information, if disclosed would constitute clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information;" and

2) "Information revealing the identity of the persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement or penal agencies."

Certainly, the police department could have provided a copy of the report of this crime or incident by redacting the name and address, along with any other identifying personal information.

An appeal to the denial was filed with the City Manager, who denied the appeal for the same reasons, in spite of my suggestion that the police department redact the individual name.

What's my option now?

Proceed with the hassle and the expense of an appeal to the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, McHenry County. If I were media with advertising and subscription dollars, that court action would be filed tomorrow morning.

OK, so I can guess what would happen. Even if I took the time and spent the money to file for "further review" of my request and the two denials at the Circuit Court, the City would then flood (no slight of the City Attorney is intended) me with Motions to suppress my request, further running up my bill for legal advice and services.

Clearly, some police matter was happening at the Post Office. The man didn't just get dizzy or drop his wallet or wander away from a caregiver. That would not require three officers and a sergeant. One officer could handle that type of call. Or so we would hope.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh for Pete's sake!

Let it go. You, who complain so vociferously about police waste, are wasting MY tax dollars in chasing this down. Really. It's over, it's done, it was not a situation that involved the safety of the public at large, and yes, more than one officer was needed.

Can you maybe get over your bad self? How about spending some of the time you're wasting on this on something really important, like sitting with your ill friend? Really. No, really.

Richard W Gorski, M.D. said...

Transparency in government is important...if it is not there then little lies are next...then big lies are told and then if the big lies are told enough times people start to believe the big lies that are told by the so called big important people. Watch out or some day a thing call liberty and freedom will not exist here.

Unknown said...

Liberty and freedom are already eroding away, look around its been going on for years.

Another Lawyer said...

Woodstock PD has the POLICY of being non-transparent, and it's near bulletproof. It is clear that they don't work for the public good. They work for the PD's good.