ArticleslgStudy

physics

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a physics topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 rather than just read about it. In short: Illinois Public Access Opinion 16‑006 is a binding opinion of the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to that state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the police murder of Laquan McDonald, the opinion addressed a public records request from Cable News Network (CNN) for emails by officers of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) related to the incident, which were on the officers' pe…

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 — main illustration
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 belongs to physics; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16‑006 is a binding opinion of the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to that state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the police murder of Laquan McDonald, the opinion addressed a public records request from Cable News Network (CNN) for emails by officers of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) related to the incident, which were on the officers' personal email accounts. After the CPD denied CNN's request, the Attorney General's office, led by Lisa Madigan, ruled that the police officers' email messages about McDonald's murder were subject to public disclosure, even though those messages were communicated on personal accounts outside of the police department's email servers. A prior appellate court decision in City of Champaign v. Madigan had established that communications about public business on personal electronic devices may be subject to disclosure. However, the scope of that decision applied only during public meetings convened by a city council or other public body, and it was unclear how it would apply to employees. In Public Access Opinion 16‑006, the Attorney General found that the police officers were acting on behalf of the police department, making their messages public records of the police department. Nonetheless, CNN never received the emails that it had requested, even after it went to court to enforce the Attorney General's opinion.

Background

On October 20, 2014, Laquan McDonald was fatally shot in Chicago by police officer Jason Van Dyke. Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and Van Dyke claimed that McDonald had pointed a knife and moved towards Van Dyke, forcing the officer to shoot in self defense. The shooting was recorded by a CPD dashboard camera. However, the video was not initially available to the public, and a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County to secure the video's release. On November 19, 2015, the court ordered CPD to release the video, and CPD complied five days later. By then, 13 months had passed since the shooting. The video revealed that McDonald had a knife in his hand, but had been walking away from police when he was shot. Van Dyke shot McDonald 16 times, most of them while McDonald was already on the ground. On January 28, 2016, Courtney Yager, a producer for Cable News Network (CNN), submitted an Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CPD for "all emails related to Laquan McDonald from Police Department email accounts and personal email accounts where business was discussed" for twelve CPD officers, including Van Dyke and others involved in the case. The request covered emails from October 19 through October 24, 2014 (around the date of the shooting), and November 19 through November 29, 2015 (around the date of the circuit court's order, and the video's subsequent release). CPD provided a large number of emails from the police officers' CPD-issued email accounts, but CPD failed to search the officers' personal email accounts, despite CNN's request. The Associated Press surmised that CNN was trying to determine whether the officers coordinated efforts to cover up the true circumstances behind McDonald's death. On April 28, 2016, CNN attorney Drew Shenkman appealed CPD's omission to the Public Access Counselor, the bureau of the Illinois Attorney General responsible for enforcing FOIA. CNN's situation was not unique. By 2018, journalists and citizen activists had filed at least 10 appeals to the Public Access Counselor after Chicago officials blocked requests for records related to the murder of McDonald.

Case law

Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, are required under FOIA to make all public records open to disclosure. Public records include 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". In City of Champaign v. Madigan, a 2013 case, the Illinois Appellate Court considered a FOIA dispute regarding elected officials who were observed using their cell phones during a city council meeting to communicate with each other. The court found that the communications in question must be disclosed to the public, as long as they pertained to public business, because the city council had collectively formed a public body upon convening a council meeting. Therefore, the court ruled that the communications, though stored on personal devices, must be disclosed. This was the first court decision in Illinois to find that messages sent on private devices were subject to disclosure under FOIA. However, the court's decision left room for interpretation in other contexts. The court found that, while city council members collectively form a public body during council meetings, they are not individually considered a public body. Therefore, a council member would not necessarily have to disclose messages received from constituents on their personal electronic devices while at home. Still, the applicability of City of Champaign to employees (rather than elected officials) of a public body remained unclear. Attorney Matt Topic, a FOIA expert based in Chicago, suggested that executive branch employees may still be required to disclose their records because they act on the public body's behalf. The University of Illinois System cited such ambiguity when it revealed in 2015 that it had failed to disclose emails stored on the private accounts of Phyllis Wise, chancellor of the university at Urbana-Champaign. An internal investigation had found that Wise intentionally evaded FOIA by using her personal account when discussing sensitive topics (such as the Steven Salaita hiring controversy) and subsequently deleting those emails. In May 2016, the Circuit Court of Cook County cited City of Champaign when it ruled that personal emails of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel may be subject to disclosure, even when stored on private devices.

Opinion

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 illustration
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006: City Building of Champaign, Illinois
City Building of Champaign, Illinois
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006: Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, author of the opinion
Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, author of the opinion
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006: A Chicago police officer using his mobile phone in 2019
A Chicago police officer using his mobile phone in 2019

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In physics, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006

In research
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 appears in physics research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 2016 in American law, 2016 in Illinois, CNN, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 in simple terms?

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16‑006 is a binding opinion of the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to that state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the police murder of Laquan McDonald, the opinion addressed a public records request from Cable News Network (CN…

Why does Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 matter?

Because it connects several physics ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006.

Tags

  • 2016 in American law
  • 2016 in Illinois
  • CNN
  • Chicago Police Department
  • Freedom of information in the United States
  • Law enforcement controversies in the United States
  • Legal history of Illinois
  • Privacy of telecommunications

Keep exploring