Dear Mr. Miller:
This email is to acknowledge the receipt of and to respond to your FOIA request dated February 3, 2020. In that request, you ask the Secretary of State to provide you with the following documents:
“Under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140, I am requesting the list of people who are currently banned from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or the Statehouse complex. An electronic copy can be delivered as a reply to this email or separately to capitolfax@gmail.com.”
I have been directed to deny your request.
There is no list of people who are banned from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or Statehouse Complex that complies with your request. There are General Orders that are issued by the Secretary of State Police/Capitol Police that are provided to Capitol Police to advise Capitol Police that a certain individual(s) is/are not permitted access to the Capitol Building and/or any other building within the Capitol Complex without an escort, as the facts/situations warrant. The General Order includes the digital photo of the banned individual (taken from Secretary of State electronic files), the banned individual’s name, the possible reason for the ban and the name and/or location within the Capitol Building/Capitol Complex of any alleged victim where the banned individual is prohibited from visiting without escort.
With respect to the release of digital photos to the news media, the Secretary of State is statutorily prohibited from releasing digital photos unless the requester falls within the categories provided in Section 6-110.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code [625 ILCS 5/6-110.1]. The section provides that digital photos captured by the Secretary of State are considered confidential and are not to be released except to (1) the individual who is the subject of the request; (2) Secretary of State employees who have a need to access the photos; (3) law enforcement for a lawful civil or criminal law enforcement investigation; and (4) the State Board of Elections for the sole purpose of providing signatures for voter registration purposes. There is no exception for members of the news media.
Banning individuals from the State Capitol and/or Capitol Complex unless escorted is a serious matter. Not only do the Secretary of State Police/Capitol Police take seriously the safety and security of all who enter the Capitol Building/Capitol complex, the Secretary of State Police/Capitol Police also take seriously the privacy rights of the alleged victim, the banned individual and any witnesses who may be affected. It is in balancing the interests of the alleged victim, the interests of banned individual and/or any witnesses, with the public’s interest in disclosure, that the Secretary of State rejects your request to provide copies of these General Orders, whether for past years or for the current year. The Secretary of State asserts that the release of the requested information, even with redactions, will lead to the disclosure of the identity of the alleged victim, the banned individual and potentially any witnesses. Disclosing the identities of the victim, banned individual and/or witnesses will result in an unwarranted invasion of their respective personal privacy and may ultimately endanger their respective lives.
In balancing the privacy rights of the alleged victim, the banned individual and any witnesses, with the public interest in disclosure, the Office of the Secretary of State respectfully declines to invade the personal privacy of, or expose the victim, the banned individual and any witnesses to, potential harm either personally or professionally by revealing their identities through the release of the requested information. Accordingly, your request is denied pursuant to Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d)(iv) and 7(1)(d)(vi) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. [5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a); 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c ); 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(iv); 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(vi)].
Should you wish to do so, you may request a review of our denial with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Public Access Bureau, 500 S. Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706 or you may avail yourself of the remedies provided in Section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. [5 ILCS 140/11].
Sincerely,
Donna M. Leonard
Executive Counsel
- OneMan - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 11:59 am:
It seems like a count of the number of people currently under these restrictions would be acceptable as well as how many people per year are placed under this restriction for the last 5 years.
Also this
In balancing the privacy rights of the alleged victim, the banned individual and any witnesses, with the public interest in disclosure, the Office of the Secretary of State respectfully declines to invade the personal privacy of, or expose the victim, the banned individual and any witnesses to, potential harm either personally or professionally by revealing their identities through the release of the requested information. Accordingly, your request is denied pursuant to Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d)(iv) and 7(1)(d)(vi) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act
You might want to ask if anyone has been determined to require and escort without a ‘victim’
- Dotnonymous - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:01 pm:
Appeal with standing.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:04 pm:
===It seems like a count of the number of people currently under these restrictions would be acceptable as well as how many people per year are placed under this restriction for the last 5 years.===
The first suggestion was my backup plan, but that second suggestion is pretty good.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:06 pm:
Request a list of those the Secretary of State was requested to ban, upon review?
There has to be “paper” on a request for consideration.
- LoyalVirus - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:08 pm:
Definitely curious about who has been put on Madigan’s double-secret probation statehouse prohibition, but also def would settle for the number of folks who’ve ever been on it. Not sure I even knew banning people from the capitol was a thing!
- Norseman - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:08 pm:
OneMan +1
- yinn - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:13 pm:
==seems like a count of the number of people currently under these restrictions would be acceptable as well as how many people per year are placed under this restriction for the last 5 years==
When you make a FOIA request, you are requesting records. If the records don’t exist, the public body does not have to generate them.
Requesting General Orders sent over a given time period might be one way to go, assuming they wouldn’t somehow trigger the security exception. Another possibility is to target correspondence.
- Annonyms - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:13 pm:
===It seems like a count of the number of people currently under these restrictions would be acceptable as well as how many people per year are placed under this restriction for the last 5 years.===
FOIA requests will be denied if they seek answers to questions, rather than documents. FOIA also does not require the creation of a list if no such list exits.
Better to ask for copies of redacted photos so you can count the number yourself or frame the request as “any document that indicates a total number of people placed under restrict in 2019.” More than likely, the latter will be deemed unduly burdensome.
A targeted email search is probably your best bet. Emails to/from SOS and Capitol Police that include “General Orders” as an attachment or say in the body “General Order,” “restriction,”
“ban,” or which contain as an attachment a digital photograph, accepting the photograph itself will not be produced.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:15 pm:
===copies of redacted photos===
Good idea.
- Downstate - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:20 pm:
” which contain as an attachment’
Sadly, I’ve been informed that FOIA requests do not cover “attachments”, even those referenced in an email.
- JS Mill - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:23 pm:
=It seems like a count of the number of people currently under these restrictions would be acceptable as well as how many people per year are placed under this restriction for the last 5 years.=
Other have said it but the request must be for documents and not answers to questions. I handle FOIA requests and if the documents are not in existence then the request is denied. We do not create or modify (other than redact if necessary) documents for a request.
- Glengarry - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:24 pm:
A free subscription perhaps….
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:25 pm:
===Sadly, I’ve been informed that FOIA requests do not cover “attachments”===
Sadly, you’ve been informed wrong.
- DuPage Saint - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:25 pm:
Could you ask who and by what authority has the power to ask that a person be band? Is there a method of appeal for those band?
- Annonyms - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:27 pm:
” which contain as an attachment’
Sadly, I’ve been informed that FOIA requests do not cover “attachments”, even those referenced in an email.
That’s incorrect. FOIA will encompass attachments. A public body may not have the ability to do a word search that includes an attachment search–although every executive branch agency can.
Even without specific search functionality for an attachments-only search, a search with certain keywords can then be culled down with a few clicks to just those emails with attachments. From there, if small enough, a manual search could even filter out for certain attachments.
- nadia - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:45 pm:
For each year of the past 5 years, the number of General Orders issued by SOS Police/Capitol Police to Capitol Police requiring escorted access for an individuals entry into the Capitol.
- GC - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:50 pm:
You could request arrest records for trespass on Capitol grounds. Certainly won’t yield a complete list or much at all, but couldn’t be withheld under FOIA.
On your original request — I agree re: photos and victims that they should be withheld but the identity of the banned persons is grey. This is a subject of highly compelling public interest and and costs $0 to seek PAC review.
- Just Thoughts - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 12:53 pm:
From 7(1)(c), the personal privacy exemption: “The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.” If a state official/employee was required to have an escort, there’s a decent argument their name isn’t protected. The PAC is also pretty requester-friendly when it comes to the 7(1)(d) exemptions.
- Just Another Anon - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:03 pm:
If you had sent this to the Speaker’s office, what are the odds it get granted? He seems to be awful transparent these days…
- Rutro - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:11 pm:
Ask McClain?
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:19 pm:
I would expect there is some kind of summary document maintained by the Capitol Police for use at entry points, listing currently active orders and perhaps pictures. I know some agencies post pictures of banned individuals at their front desks and I suspect Capitol security would have to do the same so they can keep track of them and have something to refer to.
- Groucho - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:22 pm:
In addition to the suggestion by Dupage Saint as to has the authority to ban someone and can the banned person appeal, I would like to know what can a person be banned for.
- Back to the Mountains - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:28 pm:
The problem you’ll run into with the request for the number is that they aren’t required to create a record for you in order to comply with FOIA. They could argue that no count currently exists, and they decline to count them for you.
- Watching - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:41 pm:
-Back to the Mountains is correct. I know they haven’t compiled a list and thus they don’t have to supply it. The trick to getting a list is to request emails that reference’Patrol Alert’ . That’s the term they use for people who are effectively banned from SOS buildings ( they can’t ban a citizen from a public building but they can require the citizen be accompanied by police or security in order to be allowed entrance).
- Eire17 - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:53 pm:
Maybe ask for the written protocol by which a request by someone to ban an individual is reviewed considered then approved or denied? I presume the process is more defined then one person picking up the phone and telling someone in another branch of government ban person X?
- nadia - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:13 pm:
For each year of the past 5 years, a copy, with names and pictures redacted, of each General Order issued by SOS Police/Capitol Police to Capitol Police requiring escorted access for an individuals entry into the Capitol.
- The Historian - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:14 pm:
Please take this thought in a constructive way, but I’d presume that *every* Capitol Police officer who regularly has “door duty” would perchance know the names & #s. “Askin’ aroun’” would be a standard journalistic way to proceed….
- SAP - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:32 pm:
FOIA each of the 4 Tops regarding requests submitted to SOS for bans against entry without escort?
- Stratty - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:48 pm:
Can’t help you with the Capitol, but I have a self-imposed indefinite ban from being in or looking at the Stratton Building. Reason: aesthetics.
- Simply Sayin' - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:58 pm:
If you request a list, and there is no such list, then it will be denied (same thing with asking a question..will also be denied as FOIA responses are documents not answers to questions). Ask for specific documents, e.g. documents identifying individuals banned or otherwise prohibited from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or the Statehouse complex (and maybe enter a time frame?).
- Sangamo Girl - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:50 pm:
I work in the Stratton and it’s not an everyday occurrence, but folks are required to have an escort for less than scandalous reasons. We have had to ban terminated staff members. There was a person with mental health issues who was banned because, while not dangerous, he was a pest and made people uncomfortable.