Saturday, September 24, 2016

Who’s the Man Behind the Judicial Curtain? Justice Steigmann’s 2013 FOIA Decision

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: