Illinois Freedom Of Information Act Policy: Fill & Download for Free

A police officer would be bound by his/her local rules in terms of this question. It all depends and it always depends on where you are.As some answers have noted, it would be illegal in those countries for an officer to refuse to provide this information.In Illinois, there is no law requiring that an officer provide a case number to a potential or actual suspect. There may be agencies in Illinois which require this disclosure as a matter of policy.In the US, you could make a Freedom of Information Act request for any and all case files associated with your name, but FOIA specifically exempts active or current investigations from disclosure.Personally, I don't see much reason to refuse to disclose the information. If the officer is working in a system like Paul Harding describes, "I can't tell you" might even be misunderstood as, "I won't tell you."If you're concerned about the officer's refusal to provide the case number, I suggest calling a Command Officer at the police department. Explain your concern and ask if the officer followed your local laws and the department's policy regarding disclosure of the case number. That's the only way you'll know what is accepted practice in your area.

Your friend’s lawyer probably could get access to the arrest. You will most likely never get access though. Privacy would be the likely reason. The first place to start would be to research any dashcam/bodycam policies of the agency involved. Their policies will clearly spell out who can get copies and how that process occurs.

I’m not sure I see that, but I do a rather concerning passage here from the text of the billREPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT(Below is an excerpt from page 67 of the attached PDF)Sec. 356z.4a. Coverage for abortion.(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no individual or group policy of accident and health insurance that provides pregnancy related benefits may be issued, amended, delivered, or renewed in this State after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly unless the policy provides a covered person with coverage for abortion care.(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a policy subject to this Section shall not impose a deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on the coverage provided.(c) Except as otherwise authorized under this Section, a policy shall not impose any restrictions or delays on the coverage required under this Section.(d) This Section does not, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 18054(a)(6), apply to a multistate plan that does not provide coverage for abortion.(e) If the Department concludes that enforcement of this Section may adversely affect the allocation of federal funds to this State, the Department may grant an exemption to the requirements, but only to the minimum extent necessary to ensure the continued receipt of federal funds.Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this basically require all plans to fully fund abortions through largely disallowing any out of pocket payments for it in any way?That interpretation may be supported by the elimination of a piece of insurance law that guaranteed insurance companies would (page 66)If so, holy moly Jesus Christ, prochoicers in Illinois! My actually consistently life-saving Humira and colonoscopies related to my Crohn’s disease, a few EKGs related to ensuring my heart was absolutely fine after my hole in my heart was fixed, and my mom’s thyroid medicine still all have a damn copay/deductible and the like! Not to mention when my family members have had to be in the hospital for all sorts of reasons, where quite possibly they could have died without the relevant medical care received - those cost us an arm and a leg and always helped us max out our deductible!That’s with my dad having one of the best insurance company policies he could find due to knowing how important our health is!How on earth does socioeconomically based abortion deserve more funding than my family’s actual health needs? Answer me this!!!Furthermore, it could compromise record keeping of abortions through this section (page 101–102 of the PDF)Section 910-55. The Vital Records Act is amended by changing Section 1 as follows: (410 ILCS 535/1) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 73-1)Sec. 1. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:(1) "Vital records" means records of births, deaths, fetal deaths, marriages, dissolution of marriages, and data related thereto.(2) "System of vital records" includes the registration, collection, preservation, amendment, and certification of vital records, and activities related thereto.(3) "Filing" means the presentation of a certificate, report, or other record provided for in this Act, of a birth, death, fetal death, adoption, marriage, or dissolution of marriage, for registration by the Office of Vital Records.(4) "Registration" means the acceptance by the Office of Vital Records and the incorporation in its official records of certificates, reports, or other records provided for in this Act, of births, deaths, fetal deaths, adoptions, marriages, or dissolution of marriages.(5) "Live birth" means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which after such separation breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.(6) "Fetal death" means death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from the uterus its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, and which is not due to an abortion as defined in Section 10 of the Reproductive Health Act. ; The the death is indicated by the fact that after such separation the fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.It also exempts abortion-related records from the Freedom of Information Act of the state (page 43 to page 49).Together, that may be the closest to not allowing records of 911 calls from such recordsIt also happens to eliminate all regulation of abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical centers (page 57 to 60), which I could guess would possibly compromise some safety measures. Even more so if we saw abortion providers fail to care about the women patients over proper standards of care on their ownOverall, it is a very radically prochoice bill to my understanding, though admittedly I still don’t fully appreciate all its ramifications. So I wouldn’t be too surprised if I heard it allowed abortion clinics to do pretty much anything they used to not be allowed to do.