561 N.W.2d 497 (Mich.App. 1997), 192413, Schroeder v. City of Detroit

Docket Nº:Docket No. 192413.
Citation:561 N.W.2d 497, 221 Mich.App. 364
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:David A. SCHROEDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before MARKMAN, P.J., and O'CONNELL and D.J. KELLY [*] , JJ.
Case Date:April 09, 1997
Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Page 497

561 N.W.2d 497 (Mich.App. 1997)

221 Mich.App. 364

David A. SCHROEDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,


CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 192413.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

April 9, 1997

Feb. 4, 1997

Submitted Jan. 7, 1997, at Lansing.

Released for Publication April 9, 1997.

Page 498

Colista, Adams & Palmer, P.C. by Robert W. Palmer and Elizabeth L. Sokol, Royal Oak, for plaintiff-appellant.

[221 Mich.App. 365] Jacqueline S. DeYoung and John J. O'Neill, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before MARKMAN, P.J., and O'CONNELL and D.J. KELLY [*] , JJ.


Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of dismissal in this action under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), M.C.L. § 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1801(1) et seq. We affirm.

Plaintiff applied for employment with defendant's police department. Defendant informed him that his application was terminated for failure to qualify with respect to the psychological component of the selection process. Plaintiff requested a copy of his psychological evaluation under the FOIA. Defendant denied the request pursuant to exemptions set forth in the FOIA and plaintiff filed the present action. The trial court dismissed his action on the basis that the information requested was exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

The FOIA declares that it is the public policy of this state to provide information regarding the affairs of government so that the people "may fully participate in the democratic process." M.C.L. § 15.231(2); M.S.A. § 4.1801(1)(2). It requires public bodies to disclose public records that are not specifically exempt under the act. M.C.L. § 15.233(1); M.S.A. § 4.1801(3)(1); Hyson v. Dep't of Corrections, 205 Mich.App. 422, 424, 521 N.W.2d 841 (1994). When a requesting party files a circuit court action, the court is to determine, de novo, whether disclosure should be compelled. M.C.L. § 15.240(1); M.S.A. § 4.1801(10)(1). The burden is on the public body to [221 Mich.App. 366] sustain its denial of disclosure. Id. Whether requested information fits within an exemption from disclosure under the FOIA is a mixed question of fact and law. This Court reviews a trial court's factual determinations for clear error. MCR 2.613(C). We review questions of law de novo. Oakland Hills Development Corp. v. Lueders Drainage Dist., 212 Mich.App. 284, 294, 537 N.W.2d 258 (19...

To continue reading