I have previously voiced concern that Justice Robert
Steigmann has undermined the independence of courts by donating $2,000 to a
challenger for the state’s attorney position. My view is based on something we all learned in high school civics: Our
Constitution provides for separation of powers.
Question: Is Justice Steigmann coaching the challenger (a public
defender) on legal arguments to run in newspaper ads? If so, shouldn’t the
public know that Justice Steigmann is the man behind the curtain? Where would
his influence end in relation to our local offices of public defender and state’s
attorney?
Consider the
checks-and-balances implications of the following. Suppose a reporter wanted to
FOIA Justice Steigmann and the assistant public defender he is supporting with campaign donations to
see what kind of information they have shared.
Answer: Justice Steigmann’s ruling Uphoff v. Groskopf (2013) likely
means that this information is now exempt from public scrutiny.
To that scenario, I now quote from a Pantagraph news story
that reports on Justice Steigmann’s decision to significantly narrow the scope
of FOIA. Specifically, his opinion exempts state prosecutors from FOIA requests
on grounds that these attorneys are judicial officers. Courts, it must be
noted, are exempt under FOIA—but, as the
dissenting opinion notes, that completely misreads the Illinois constitution.
Judges and law enforcement officials are constitutionally distinct.
Judge for yourself after reading this excerpt from a Dec.
24, 2013 story from the Pantagraph news story (Bloomington-Normal, IL).
Prosecutors immune from public records law, court says
Reported by Edith
Brady-Lunny PONTIAC — Illinois
state’s attorneys do not have to comply with the state’s Freedom of Information
Act, according to a ruling by the Fourth District Appellate Court in a
Livingston County case.
The opinion follows an appeal by the Livingston County
state’s attorney’s office of a 2010 ruling that the prosecutor’s office should
turn over documents in a 2001 murder case to Matthew Grosskopf, a private
citizen who requested the materials under the state’s public records law.
In the appellate
opinion filed Dec. 12, Justice Robert Steigmann put the blame for the confusion
as to whether state prosecutors are part of the judicial branch of government
on the legislature. He said 2010 changes to the State’s Attorneys Appellate
Prosecutor’s Act moved special prosecutors from “an agency of state government”
to the judicial branch, making them exempt from the records law.
Tomich, a 26-year-old flight attendant, was killed at the
Limestone Rest Area near Pontiac by Kevin Bray. The victim was beaten to death by
the Wapella man after she stopped at the rest area on her way home to Canton. The
Livingston County case may move to the Illinois Supreme Court and become part
of its consideration of a similar debate in a Kendall County case.
Illinois Press Association attorney Don Craven said Monday
that he has asked the Supreme Court to hear the Livingston County case in
conjunction with the Kendall County matter expected to be heard early next
year.
The closure of records from the state’s attorney’s office
denies the public information about more than what may be contained in criminal
case files, said Craven.
“There are many things in that office that should be subject
to disclosure and public disclosure,” said Craven. The county prosecutor
advises county officials, handles public funds and operates a public office —
all functions worthy of public scrutiny, said Craven.
****
Here is the dissenting opinion in Uphoff v. Grosskopf:
Presiding Justice
APPLETON, dissenting.
I respectfully
dissent. While I recognize the very real policy reasons in preventing the
disclosure of prosecution files and work product (a policy with which I agree),
I do not find the slender reed of the legislature’s denomination of the State's
Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office as a “judicial agency of State
government,” without any substantive policy analysis of this conclusion by the
General Assembly, is sufficient to support the conclusion this state's 102
State's Attorneys are exempt from FOIA. Nor do I believe the inclusion of
State's Attorneys within the several iterations of the judicial article of our
state constitution places those offices within the judicial branch of
government. Indeed, it is the judicial branch of government that is
specifically excluded as a “public body” within the meaning of FOIA. Those 102 offices function as the prosecutorial arm of our
system of justice, independent of judicial control. Because State's
Attorneys are not members of the judicial branch and, thus, excluded, it stands
to reason the offices are “public bodies” according to our legislature's
definition of that term.
Should the
legislature come to the conclusion that State's Attorneys' files not be subject
to FOIA, it can specifically exclude State's Attorneys' offices from its
purview.
No comments:
Post a Comment