Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 22, 2024

Attorney General rules against Orland Park Police Dept on electronic records –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On November 10, 2015

Orland Park, IL. (ECWd) –
Fifteen months after submitting a Request for Review to the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (“PAC”) for access to public records that were required to be provided within FIVE DAYS, the PAC determined that the Orland Park Police Department (“OPPD”) violated the Freedom Of Information Act by not providing public records in electronic format.

This determination shows that if a public body has documents electronically, even if they claim they had to print them out to redact them,  they have to then scan them back in and send them to the requester electronically.


The Requester asked for documents that the police had in electronic format. OPPD told them to come pick them up in person as they were provided in paper format. Requester said, no, you have those electronically so you have to give them to us electronically.


OPPD then claimed that they could not redact them electronically, so they printed them out to manually redact them. Then they claimed that once they were printed out, they didn’t have to scan them in as PDFs and send them electronically.


[documentcloud url=”” ]


The PAC told the OPPD they were dead wrong, it’s their own fault they claim they can’t redact the documents electronically. If it’s maintained electronically in their system then they have to send provide it electronically when asked.
[documentcloud url=”” ]


They are not allowed to require documents be picked up in person. Also, IF they had to send paper documents, postage is at THEIR EXPENSE.


[documentcloud url=”” ]


So, if a public body possesses something electronically, then even if it claims it needs to print it out to redact it, the public body then indeed has to scan it back into the computer electronically and email it as requested. No exceptions.



AG determination below:
[documentcloud url=”” pdf=false container=”#DV-viewer-2511330-2014-pac-29008-foia-electronicrecords”]




Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 21:32h, 10 November

    Thank you for reporting this. Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan win again.
    The Orland Park Police Department has been proven to have thwarted FOIA law. It is responsible for the money used to defy open government laws.
    I have no doubt more money will be wasted as OPPD and OPPL work together, as video evidence shows, to thwart Fox and DuJan who exposed the child p0rnography cover up at OPPL (that even Saturday Night Live essentially mocked) and the direct connection to American Library Association’s pro-child p0rn policies.
    In this case, OPPD defied open government laws to advance the efforts to keep the public from learning of the harm that ALA policies are causing Orland Park residents, visitors, and employees in OPPL.
    Allowing and covering up child p0rnography is one of the harms of ALA policy as applied in local libraries nationwide. No one has yet be arrested for aiding and abetting this crime in OPPL and I look forward to that.
    I’m also looking forward to seeing what OPPD was hiding.

  • Blount
    Posted at 23:25h, 10 November

    Well last month Megan settled her lawsuit againt the Village of Orland Park and the Orland Park Police. She was given $12,000 towards her legal bills while acknowledging the payment does not cover all her legal expenses. Clerk of the circuit court website states the the lawsuit was settled in favor of the defendant, the Village. The money was basically a payment to her in an agreement that with mounting legal bills, the longer the suit went on and likelihood deminishing that there would be an award in excess of her legal bills she took what she could get. Could explain why her fan page has been mysteriously quiet for the past six weeks.
    I wonder if her last Oppl video posted on you tube where she went off the map at the board accusing an employee of colluding with other librarians across the state, claiming it was these same folks behind the death threats against her. She claimed on the video to have proof of this. I’ve been waiting for her to publish this proof.
    Or perhaps someone finally told her she’d be on the end of another defamation lawsuit if she kept up these unfounded accusations.

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 10:21h, 10 December

      Blount, settlements are settlements, the court doesn’t say who it was settled in favor of (even though the Clerk may have written that in there). The dollar amount that may or may not cover all the legal expenses is not the issue. I doubt if any threats of “another defamation lawsuit” would make any difference, since that is all it would be, a threat.
      Have you even considered that the village and its polcie department may have started to realize they would end up losing if it went to court?

  • Mitch
    Posted at 23:40h, 10 November

    The AG strongly wags his finger at OPPL in this ruling.

    • SweetSue
      Posted at 08:41h, 11 November

      Mainly because it was an issue about electronic documents vs. paper documents. Probably why the lawsuit was settled in favor of the Village

      • jmkraft
        Posted at 10:22h, 11 November

        WRONG! LOL @ SweetSue – The lawsuit against the village was settled for $55,000 payable to Fox, and for routine disclosure of public records.

        • Blount
          Posted at 11:13h, 11 November

 See page 78 of attached
          The Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiff Twelve Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($12,000.00). To the extent the payment amount includes attorneys’ fees under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et. seq., Plaintiff and Defendants acknowledge that this amount is a compromise and does not represent the full amount to which Plaintiff contends it would be entitled as a reasonable attorney fee award had it filed a fee petition with the Court. Plaintiff waives her right, if any, to collect any additional attorneys’ fees incurred in this litigation from the Defendants.
          They basically paid her to go away, Fox did not win this case. The Village on 10/31/15, per the Clerk of the Circuit Court (the defendant) won the case. And the issue really was not about providing the documents, but providing them in the format she wanted.

          • jmkraft
            Posted at 12:37h, 11 November

            Blount: I will provide what you failed to provide:
            WHEREAS, after the Lawsuit was filed, Defendants produced responsive documents and agreed to update their FOIA procedures; and …
            This case and the AG determination are two separate events – one having nothing to do with the other.

      • Beelady33
        Posted at 12:29h, 11 November

        “the lawsuit was settled in favor of the Village”??? In what world is a $55k payout to the person who brought the suit “in favor” of the village that got sued? You people are delusional

    • Beelady33
      Posted at 12:30h, 11 November

      This ruling is agains the Orland Police Department. You seem to have limited reading comprehension. You’re welcome.

      • Blount
        Posted at 14:14h, 11 November

        Well, sorry for making the assumption that the issues at hand between Fox and the Village of Orland Park (and the police department, et al), were over the same issues. While the ruling from the AG was in her favor, the settlement of the lawsuit against the Village and Police Department came as a result of lawyers agreeing that there would not be any judgement made against the Village and Police Department in court for FOIA errors and it would be best to quit pursuing this legal case with no hope of a judgement in her favor and the possibility of collecting on her legal bills in their entirety.
        If Fox’s attorney that brought the suit on her behalf believed she would win her case, he probably would not have advised to settle on the $12,000 the Village offered her towards her legal bills, especially if her legal bills exceed the amount the Village extended to her.

        • jmkraft
          Posted at 16:05h, 11 November

          I understand how you are reading it, and it does read that way, however, I read it knowing that there could have been fees/fine for “intentionally” violating FOIA, which is what I believe they were trying to avoid since they provided all the requested records, but only after a lawsuit was filed. Further litigation would not have produced any more records, only increased atty fees.

  • SafeLibraries
    Posted at 23:47h, 10 November

    I found out what was requested in the FOIA that OPPD effectively denied (and that it took the AG so long to address). Among other things, it was evidence of the crime of CHILD P0RNOGRAPHY! Yes, CHILD p0rnography. I know Chicago Tribune and all other media leave out the word CHILD but that’s what this is all about.
    So OPPD was also suppressing evidence of child p0rnography viewing at OPPL? So OPPD was also suppressing evidence of child p0rnography resulting from a public library following American Library Association’s pro-child p0rn policy?
    This is not going to be good for OPPL and now OPPD and Village of Orland Park when they finally pay the piper from the crime of child p0rnography that was allowed, covered up, and still unpunished in OPPL, likely because that would harm ALA efforts to maintain its pro-child porn policy in libraries nationwide.
    And all the time OPPD was suppressing evidence of CHILD p0rn, ALA and OPPL made hay out of mocking the child p0rn whistleblowers and using the media to spin the story to make the whistleblowers look wrong/crazy. Imagine the effect had OPPD released the information a year and a half ago in accordance with the law. All those municipal resources wasted on spinning instead of complying with the law. All to protect the American Library Association. All to protect ALA pro-CHILD p0rn policy it promotes nationwide.
    Of course, all this here and anywhere I write is my opinion. But I sure look forward to the day this is tested in court. And it is already clear per the AG letter that OPPD suppressed evidence in a fashion that violated the law. And the evidence suppressed was about child p0rn crimes in OPPL. CHILD p0rnography.

    • Blount
      Posted at 07:32h, 11 November

      Her lawsuit was settled with an agreement that she cannot continue to sur over these matters.

      • jmkraft
        Posted at 10:25h, 11 November

        LOL @ Blount – This article was not about a lawsuit, and the Orland Park PD was clearly found in the wrong. The lawsuit I think you are referring to did not say she cannot continue to sue over violations of OMA and FOIA – only those specific instances named in the complaint, which is typical of every settlement.

    • Mitch
      Posted at 09:06h, 11 November

      What is child p0rn?

      • jmkraft
        Posted at 10:20h, 11 November

        why did you ask, you already know

        • Mitch
          Posted at 10:51h, 11 November

          Because I’ve never heard of child p0rn. What is it?