STATES ATTY-PEACE OFCR-PRIVACY
SB2087 creates the State’s Attorney and Peace Officer Privacy Act, a new Illinois law intended to protect the personal information of State’s Attorneys, Assistant State’s Attorneys, peace officers, and certain immediate family members. The bill allows these officials to submit a written request asking government agencies, businesses, and other entities to stop publicly posting or displaying specified personal information, and it requires government agencies to remove that information from publicly available content within five business days after receiving a valid request. It also provides a process for requests to be made directly or through the Attorney General, and it allows the request to remain in effect until revoked or until the person dies.
The bill also makes it unlawful to knowingly post personal information on the Internet when the poster knows or reasonably should know that doing so poses an imminent and serious threat to the safety of the protected person or immediate family member, and when that posting is a proximate cause of bodily injury or death. A violation of that provision is a Class 3 felony. The bill includes exemptions, such as for government employees acting in good faith in the ordinary course of public duties, and it directs that the act be construed broadly in favor of privacy protection. It would take effect immediately if enacted.
In terms of state-law impact, SB2087 would create a new statutory privacy framework that intersects with public records practices and the Freedom of Information Act. It would require government agencies to suppress certain personal information from public postings after notice, exempt that information from FOIA disclosure unless consent is given, and authorize injunctive or declaratory relief for noncompliance. It also establishes criminal liability for certain harmful online disclosures, expanding the legal protections available to prosecutors and peace officers beyond existing general privacy and harassment laws.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly protective of law enforcement and prosecutorial personnel, emphasizing safety, security, and freedom from retaliation. Because no committee transcripts or votes are provided, there is no recorded debate or vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears designed to respond to concerns about doxxing, harassment, and threats against public safety officials and their families.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between privacy and transparency. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a safeguard against retaliation and online targeting, while critics may question whether the restrictions are too broad, whether they could affect public access to information, and whether the felony provision could chill lawful speech or reporting. The bill’s broad construction clause, FOIA exemption language, and inclusion of Internet intermediaries such as search engines and data aggregators are likely to be the most debated features.
SB2087 would add a new Illinois statutory scheme governing the disclosure of personal information for State’s Attorneys, Assistant State’s Attorneys, and peace officers. It would require government agencies to remove protected personal information from publicly available content after a written request, bar further public posting of that information absent consent, and create a FOIA exemption for the protected data. The bill also creates a new criminal offense for certain Internet postings that foreseeably expose these officials or their immediate family to imminent serious harm, punishable as a Class 3 felony, and authorizes civil injunctive or declaratory relief for violations.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure reflect a strong pro-safety, pro-privacy sentiment for prosecutors and peace officers, with the legislature being asked to prioritize protection from retaliation, harassment, and doxxing. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the available materials. On its face, the measure is framed as a protective response to threats against public officials and their families.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of the privacy restrictions, the interaction with public records and FOIA, and the criminalization of certain online disclosures. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill is narrowly aimed at preventing dangerous doxxing and retaliation against law enforcement and prosecutors, while opponents may argue that the definitions are broad, the Internet-related obligations could burden third parties, and the felony penalty could raise free-speech concerns. The inclusion of immediate family members and the broad construction clause may also draw scrutiny.