Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a legal opinion of the Illinois Attorney General concerning the state's public records law. In the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer, several officers discussed the incident through their private email accounts, and CNN asked for copies of those emails. The police department denied that request, prompting the Attorney General to issue a binding ruling that required their disclosure. The opinion came several years after City of Champaign v. Madigan (recently promoted to FA), an Illinois appellate court case that addressed a similar issue involving elected officials sending private communications during a city council meeting. Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of the photo of the cop checking his phone. Note WP:IMAGERELEVANCE: 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding'. I don't see how a cop on a phone is particularly relevant to a FOIR regarding emails, so how does it aid our understanding of the topic, which is primarily a legal judgment? I think this falls into the 'decorative' department. Is there a shortage of images? I see the article on the original murder is also pretty sparse, unfortunately. ——Serial18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is a shortage of images relating to the murder of Laquan McDonald. But this article is notable not just for its relevance to the murder, but also for its significance as a legal opinion and its effects on the boundaries between personal and work lives. So the images don't have to be directly relevant to Laquan McDonald. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also ref 14: looking at the archive url, Associated Press isn't the author, it's the wire agency. There's a separate parameter for that, the author parameter should be empty
Is the Illinois Policy Institute reliable? Not sure what the standards are regarding think tank sources
The Illinois Policy Institute leans conservative, but such a source is permitted under WP:PARTISAN so long as it's reliable for the context in which it is used. In this case, the Illinois Policy Institute is merely recounting arguments made by CPD and the decision of the Attorney General, and this reporting is easily verifiable by reading the opinion itself. If you'd like, I can add a citation to the opinion (as the primary source) to go alongside the secondary source citation. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1: I don't see anything here about "Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) suggested that McDonald was behaving erratically, and that the shooting was justifiable, leading to Van Dyke not being charged at the time." though this is a long article and I may have missed something
"Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts." not sure what part of the source is supporting this but I'm probably missing something. I don't like "reportedly" as it's a bit of a weasel word so I'd rather be clear about who was stating this and why they thought it was the case.
The source says: "police officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices". The information is attributed to Ben Schuster, an attorney who had been interviewed for that article, but I'm not sure if he should be cited directly. Happy to hear your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"CPD provided a large number of emails from the police officers' CPD-issued email accounts, but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request." Page 2 of the report doesn't explicitly say this.
Would be ideal to use a secondary source for the parts currently only backed by the opinion itself, though I'd understand if no such sources exist.
I'm mainly using the opinion as a primary source for the procedural history of the case, and also key dates. (e.g. the dates of the FOIA request, the request for review, the AG's decision, etc.) Since I'm using the opinion only to support basic facts rather than interpretation, it's appropriate under WP:PRIMARY. Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry to both of you for my lack of haste here. I got pretty run-down with IRL stuff the past few weeks and didn't have much time or energy to spend here. I should be able to finish reviewing the rest of this article in detail today though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize! I totally understand that things happen IRL, and we all have our own priorities to attend to.
@Gog the Mild: I'm actually traveling internationally for two weeks starting today, so I'm happy to put this FAC on hold for two weeks, or at least move along a bit more slowly. Let me know if you have concerns about the speed of progress. Edge3 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid FACs can't be paused. Moving slowly but making progress is a different but not well defined issue. In order to try and avoid it timing out I have poked HF, and added it to Urgents to try and get more reviewers. I think you have had my standard advice on how to get additional reviewers. Elli, relax. If you get a full or partial review done, great. If not, RL is priority: Wikipedia is what we do for fun; we shall all no doubt somehow survive without it. ;) Take care of yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said makes sense. I still have my laptop with me so can respond to queries and do light editing, albeit at a slower pace than I usually do. And as you say, RL takes priority anyhow. :-) Edge3 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of your kind words -- I took them to heart and took a week off. Finished review is below:
All good! I'm glad you took some time off, and I hope you feel better rested now. I'm currently on vacation anyhow, so it'll take me some time to respond to everything. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking the wording could be clearer about the quote; something like "records open to disclosure, including all emails..."
I'm reluctant to combine those sentences because it would be very long. ("Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, are required under FOIA to make all public records open to disclosure, including all emails 'pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body'.") Happy to consider a different version that's cleaner. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph, moving the first sentence to the end might be clearer (with a slight rephrase: "This ruling, by the Illinois Appellate Court, was the first decision in Illinois to find that..."
Feel comfortable supporting this as I only have a few minor questions/nitpicks that aren't very important. Would like to see your thoughts though. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this. Not familiar with Illinois municipal law, but I do have some familiarity with one state over (Missouri). Hog FarmTalk03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters - is Huffington Post really going to be a high-quality source as required by the FA criteria for the material that it is citing, in light of the cautions found at WP:HUFFPOLITICS?Hog FarmTalk03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts" - this is a bit weaselly worded. There needs to be some sort of attribution as to who is making this claim, if possible
Elli actually brought up the same concern above. The attribution is to Ben Schuster, but as I stated above, I'm not sure if I should directly attribute this to someone who wasn't even involved in the incident. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem is that the article is written in a way that assumes the emails existed, although it doesn't seem like that can be proven beyond a doubt. All we get is a shadowy hand wave about unspecified people believing they existed for unspecified reasons. CNN evidently had reason to believe the emails existed. Is there really no other source that addresses this more directly than the one currently being used? Hog FarmTalk21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have found something written by AP. Take a look at this edit and let me know if you think it's better. I removed the sentence that sounded weaselly, per your and Elli's suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"On January 28, 2016, Courtney Yager, a producer for CNN, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CPD" - if this is through the state act, I'd indicate that within the article text, as I (and presumably other readers as well) assumed that this was referring to the better-known federal Freedom of Information Act (United States) before I saw where the link was going
" but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request" - my instinct is that something about the Champaign case needs mentioned before this, as without that previous ruling would there really have been any expectation for CNN to be able to receive this information?
To me it feels like synthesis to link the Champaign case to CNN's FOIA request. CNN is a national publication, and Yager (the producer) and Shenkman (the legal counsel) are not from Illinois. I doubt that they specifically had Champaign in mind when filing the FOIA request. In the Attorney General's opinion, Champaign isn't even mentioned until page 6, and it appears that CPD didn't consider Champaign as authoritative until it filed its supplemental (i.e. second) response to the Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very concise and clearly written article. Just two minor points, neither of which affect my support.
It was interesting to discover halfway through the article that the opinion did not lead to the provision of any of the personal emails covered by the opinion. The officers refused to comply, and the opinion only says the officers could be ordered to do their own search, not to give others access to their accounts. You cite a comment to the effect that the opinion should have made it clearer how access could be enforced. It's apparent that the opinion has limited effectiveness, and I wonder if it would be possible to make that point in the lead. If the sources don't discuss it in a way that lets you draw that conclusion, that's fine, but it seems a relevant point that the reader only gradually understands as they read the article. If not, could we at least mention in the lead that the officers did not comply?
The sources tend to characterize the opinion more as a "victory" for public access advocates, despite the fact that CNN never received the emails it had requested. You're correct that this point would only be apparent to the astute reader. I've added an extra sentence to the lead. Edge3 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"expired", in the last sentence of the article, is a slightly technical term that some readers may not be familiar with. Could we get a link that explains it?
I did a quick search on Google, and most guides explain how a bill becomes law in Illinois, but very few talk about how a bill doesn't become law. Basically the idea is that the General Assembly sits for two-year sessions, and at the end of each session all bills automatically die if they were not already passed. I'll try to do some more digging and find a more detailed reference, such as a book or law reference on Illinois legislative procedure. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a police officer". Perhaps 'Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the murder by a police officer of Laquan McDonald'? When I first read this, I couldn't work out why a police officer would be issuing the opinion.
I changed the phrasing to "police murder of Laquan McDonald". Does that work? I've also expanded CNN to its full name at first mention. Edge3 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
