Tynis v. McHenry County Sheriff's Department

2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 2-24-0488
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U No. 2-24-0488 Order filed May 13, 2025

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

JOEL W. TYNIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of McHenry County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) v. ) No. 24-MR-28 ) THE McHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) DEPARTMENT, ) Honorable ) Joel D. Berg, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McLaren and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: (1) Sheriff’s redactions of FOIA responses were consistent with the FOIA’s exemptions for personal information and plans for investigation. (2) An award of fees, costs, or expenses under the FOIA was not appropriate where plaintiff did not prevail in his action to compel FOIA responses and the sheriff did not act willfully or in bad faith by relying on a supreme court rule to decline FOIA requests.

¶2 Pro se plaintiff, Joel W. Tynis, appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint (see 735 ILCS

5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2022)) against defendant, the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department, under

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2022)). We affirm. 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 At all pertinent times, plaintiff was an inmate at the McHenry County Jail, awaiting trial

on a charge of drug-induced homicide. On February 8, 2024, he filed his “Complaint for Violation

of the FOIA Government Emails.” The complaint sought copies of text messages and e-mails

related to his case. We summarize the complaint and its attachments.

¶5 Plaintiff alleged that, on January 1, 2024, he made the following requests to defendant,

seeking materials associated with certain law enforcement officers:

“Any and all forms of electronic Communications Sent and/or received including

but not limited to: Emails and text messages—From Any and All members of the McHenry

County task for [sic] and/or sheriff’s office, created Any and All hours of 01/06/2022,

included [sic] but not limited to, communication regarding the dispatch and investigation

to the 911 response to [a McHenry address] and the later survielance [sic] performed at [a

Holiday Hills address], for your report #SO-22-540—with any personal information

redacted and An Index of any and All records being withheld.”

“[A]ny and all forms of electronic communication sent and/or received, including

but not limited to: Email and text messages—from Deputy K. Wendt (SO-2142), Created

during any and all hours of 01/06/2022, to be included but not limited to, communications

regarding 1.) your report SO-22-2540 2.) [plaintiff] 3.) Investigations 4.) Case 22cf16

5.) Case 22cf14 6.) Evidence logs, et. cetera. With any personal information redacted—

please include information of the types of search performed and an index of any and all

records being withheld.”

“Any and all forms of electronic Communication sent and/or received, including

but not limited to: Emails and text messages—from deputy Ryan Ehardt (SO-6920)—

-2- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

created during Any and All hours of 01/05/2022—through 01/07/2022, and Also

02/02/2022—through 02/03/2022, to be included but not limited to communications

regarding: 1) your report #SO-22-540 2) [plaintiff] 3) warrant(s) and any application

thereof 4) investigations 5) Arrests 6) probable cause—with any personal information

redacted. And an index of Any and all records being withheld ***.”

“Any and all forms of electronic communication Sent and/or Received including

but not limited to: Emails and text messages from—Joshua Singer (SO 6653), Created

during Any and All hours of 03/27/2022—through 03/29/2022, And Also 01/31/2022—

through 02/02/2022, to be included but not limited to, Communications regarding 1) your

report #SO-22-540 2) [plaintiff] 3) cell phone Analysis 4) warrants 5) investigations

6) case #22CF16, With any personal information redacted and an Index of Any and All

¶6 Sometime in mid-January 2024, plaintiff requested “ ‘a search of Sgt. Urgo, Deputy Lee,

and Deputy Sosnowski, for any and all hours of 01/06/2022.’ ”

¶7 Plaintiff attached to his complaint defendant’s responses from mid-to-late January 2024.

Defendant responded as follows. Singer “ha[d] no text messages in relation to [plaintiff’s] case or

the time frames that [he was] requesting ***.” However, defendant included a copy of an e-mail

from Singer that met plaintiff’s request. Defendant noted that it had redacted portions of the e-mail

per the following exemptions in sections 7(1)(b) and (c) of the FOIA:

“(b) Private information, unless disclosure is required by another provision of this

Act, a State or federal law or a court order.

***

-3- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

(c) 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.” 5 ILCS

140/7(1)(b), (c) (West 2022).

¶8 As to Wendt, he “was not in possession of any text messages dating back to 2022 involving

[plaintiff] and/or this case.” Also, “[t]he emails that were produced during the search for [Wendt’s]

email address [were] not releasable” because they contained “classified information that could not

be redacted, such as witness, juvenile and confidential information leading up to the search warrant

that would release unique investigative techniques.” The search also produced Law Enforcement

Agencies Data System (LEADS) data, which “cannot be released to any individual or organization

that is not legally authorized.”

¶9 Defendant’s response regarding Wendt relied on three exemptions. The first two were set

forth in sections 7(1)(d)(iv) and (v) of the FOIA:

“(d) 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:

(iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential

information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file

complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law

enforcement, or penal agencies ***.

(v) disclose unique or specialized investigative techniques other than those

generally used and known or disclose internal documents of correctional agencies

-4- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

related to detection, observation or investigation of incidents of crime or

misconduct, and disclosure would result in demonstrable harm to the agency or

public body that is the recipient of the request.” Id. § 7(1)(d)(iv), (v).

The third exemption was in section 1240.80(d) of Title 20 of the Administrative Code (20 Ill.

Adm. Code, § 1240.80(d) (2017)): “LEADS data shall not be disseminated to any individual or

organization that is not legally authorized to have access to the information.” See 5 ILS

140/7(1)(a) (West 2022) (exempting “[i]nformation specifically prohibited from disclosure by

federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law”). Defendant

explained that “[t]he public is not entitled to view or possess data that is transmitted through,

received through, or stored in LEADS.”

¶ 10 As to Ehardt, defendant told plaintiff that Ehardt “was not in possession of any text

messages dating back to 2022 involving [plaintiff] and/or this case.” Defendant also noted that

plaintiff requested Ehardt’s e-mails relating to pending criminal cases against plaintiff. Therefore,

defendant reasoned, disclosure to plaintiff was barred by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415(c) (eff.

Oct. 1, 1971), which provides that “[a]ny materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these rules

shall remain in his or her exclusive custody unless the court authorizes dissemination pursuant to

this rule ***.” Defendant informed plaintiff that the e-mails “need[ed] to be requested through

[his] attorney.”

¶ 11 As to Urgo, Lee, and Sosnowski, defendant stated that its search uncovered seven pertinent

e-mails but that all were exempt as LEADS information.

¶ 12 Plaintiff’s complaint sought, inter alia, (1) “an order by the court requiring the defendant[ ]

to produce the requested records with any exempted material redacted” and (2) an award of fees,

-5- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

costs, and penalties against defendant for its violations of the FOIA, which plaintiff alleged were

in bad faith.

¶ 13 Defendant did not file an answer but instead moved to dismiss the complaint. Not invoking

any exemptions it had cited in its responses to plaintiff’s requests, defendant relied solely on

section 7(1)(f) of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f) (West 2022)), which exempts

“[p]reliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda, and other records in which

opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record

or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and

identified by the head of the public body.”

¶ 14 The trial court ordered defendant “to tender redacted and unredacted copies of responsive

documents to [the court] for a confidential in camera inspection ***.” At the hearing on the motion

to dismiss, the court noted that it had reviewed defendant’s responses “with a fine tooth comb.”

The court explained that it found defendant in full compliance with the FOIA:

“[T]here are *** differences on nearly every page that [plaintiff] received. Those

differences are generally the redaction of an address or a date of birth or a phone number,

all of which are properly redactable under the FOIA ***, very clearly.

The few things that are redacted under the investigative technique [sic] are pretty

much limited to the manner in which it went forth.

I found two sentences that were removed from one paragraph. Those two sentences

*** were clearly an investigative track that they were following. That is confidential.

The few things that are not contained within what they gave [plaintiff] are, as I said,

generally speaking addresses, methods of communication.

-6- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

There are only two or three lines of substantive information that are not contained

in what [defendant] gave [plaintiff], and those lines are future investigations. And then

there [is] a stack of the criminal records reports run for [plaintiff] and some other people,

all of which are also protected information ***.”

Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, which

the court denied. Plaintiff timely appealed.

¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 16 On appeal, plaintiff contends that (1) the trial court’s reliance on section 7(1)(f) of the

FOIA in dismissing his complaint was erroneous because that exemption does not apply to the

documents at issue and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to assess fees, costs, or penalties against

defendant. Defendant responds that (1) section 7(1)(f) of the FOIA exempts the redacted matter

from disclosure, (2) other exemptions also protect the redacted matter, and (3) the trial court

properly refused to assess fees, costs, or penalties against defendant. We hold that dismissal was

proper under the alternative exemptions defendant cites, and we do not consider whether section

7(1)(f) also applies. We further hold that the court did not err in declining to assess fees, costs, or

penalties against defendant.

¶ 17 Whether an exemption applies under the FOIA is a question of law, which we review

de novo. Garlick v. Naperville Township, 2017 IL App (2d) 170025, ¶ 44.

¶ 18 At issue are nine e-mails and two criminal history reports. We turn first to the e-mails. The

trial court examined two versions of each: original and redacted. The e-mails were sent and

received as follows:

(1) January 6, 2022, at 7:47 p.m. from Ehardt to other McHenry County employees

regarding the arrest and search of defendant;

-7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

(2) January 7, 2022, at 7:34 p.m. from Officer Korie Sergot to three others relating that,

after arriving at the jail, defendant requested and was permitted to speak about a “deal”;

(3) January 7, 2022, at 9:49 p.m. from a McHenry County employee to Ehardt and Urgo

stating that defendant “would like to talk”;

(4) February 1, 2022, at 7:19 p.m., from Ehardt to Singer recounting Ehardt’s investigation

of a drug deal that occurred on January 5 and 6, 2022;

(5) Singer’s response to Ehardt on February 3, 2022, at 6:54 a.m.;

(6) February 2, 2022, at 9:59 a.m. from a McHenry County employee to Ehardt reminding

him of three upcoming grand jury sessions—one in defendant’s case and two in apparently

unrelated cases;

(7) February 3, 2022, at 12:49 p.m., from Ehardt to Sosnowski requesting the submission

of evidence for testing;

(8) Sosnowski’s response to Ehardt at 12:53 p.m. that day; and

(9) Ehardt’s reply to Sosnowski at 1:01 p.m. that day.

Although plaintiff requested texts and e-mails to and from Wendt, none appear in the record.

¶ 19 E-mail addresses were redacted from all the e-mails. Those redactions were within section

7(1)(b) of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(b) (West 2022)), which exempts private information. See

Heinrich v. White, 2012 IL App (2d) 110564, ¶ 14. Only e-mails (4) and (6) had additional

redactions. Defendant redacted from e-mail (6) the name of the sender and the names of two cases

that had no connection to defendant; thus, that redacted material was outside the scope of his

request. From e-mail (4), defendant redacted (a) the address and phone number of the victim and

(b) Ehardt’s plan for further investigating the case. Redaction (a) was proper because the material

was private information. See id. Redaction (b) was within section 7(1)(d)(i) of the FOIA (id.

-8- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

§ 7(1)(d)(i)), which exempts law enforcement agency records, the disclosure of which would

“interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings.”

¶ 20 We turn to the criminal history reports for plaintiff and his roommate. Each consisted of

(1) personal information, e.g., date of birth, address, height, weight, and appearance, driver’s

license and vehicles, and employment history; and (2) LEADS information detailing the person’s

arrest record and criminal charges. The trial court upheld defendant’s refusal to provide either of

these documents, as their contents fell under the exemptions for private information (§ 7(1)(b))

and LEADS information (see 20 Ill. Adm. Code, § 1240.80(d) (2017) (prohibiting dissemination

of LEADS information to those not legally authorized to receive it); 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a) (West

2022) (exempting “[i]nformation specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or

rules and regulations implementing federal or State law”)).

¶ 21 We conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint after finding

that defendant had complied with the FOIA.

¶ 22 We turn to plaintiff’s contention that the trial court erred in declining to assess fees, costs,

or penalties against defendant under sections 11(i) and (j) of the FOIA (id. § 11 (i), (j)). Section

11(i) states: “If a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record prevails

in a proceeding under this Section, the court shall award such person reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs.” No award is appropriate under this provision, as plaintiff did not prevail in this

proceeding; the court granted him no additional disclosures beyond what defendant had already

provided. Id. § 11 (i).

¶ 23 Section 11(j) provides that the court shall impose a civil penalty where the public body

“willfully and intentionally failed to comply” with the FOIA or “otherwise acted in bad faith.” Id.

§ 11(j). Plaintiff contends that penalties were warranted because defendant willfully violated the

-9- 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U

FOIA by initially claiming that disclosure of the requested materials was barred by Rule 415(c),

which provides that “[a]ny materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these rules shall remain

in his or her exclusive custody unless the court authorizes dissemination pursuant to this rule ***.”

Ill. S. Ct. R. 415(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 1971). According to plaintiff, at the time defendant invoked Rule

415(c), the requested materials had already been ordered to be disclosed as discovery in plaintiff’s

criminal cases. However, that discovery order is not in the record in this appeal, as plaintiff

concedes. We may not consider evidence outside the record. See Paluch v. United Parcel Service,

Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 130621, ¶ 23. Moreover, we have no basis to conclude that defendant knew

that reliance on Rule 415(c) was baseless or otherwise acted in bad faith. We also note that

defendant did not violate the FOIA by raising an arguably applicable exemption that it did not

invoke originally. See Kopchar v. City of Chicago, 395 Ill. App. 3d 762, 769-70 (2009).

¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.

¶ 26 Affirmed.

- 10 -