Federated Publications, Inc. v. City of Lansing

• Decision Date: 25 July 2002
• Docket Number: Docket No. Calendar No. 5.,Docket No. 118184,Docket No. 118186
• Citation: 467 Mich. 98,649 N.W.2d 383
• Parties: FEDERATED PUBLICATIONS, INC, doing business as the Lansing State Journal, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF LANSING, Defendant-Appellant, and Capitol City Lodge No. 141 of the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Program, Inc, and Jane Doe, and John Doe, Intervening Defendants. Federated Publications, Inc, doing business as the Lansing State Journal, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Lansing, Defendant, and Capitol City Lodge No. 141 Of the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Program, Inc, Intervening Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

649 N.W.2d 383

467 Mich. 98

FEDERATED PUBLICATIONS, INC, doing business as the Lansing State Journal, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF LANSING, Defendant-Appellant, and Capitol City Lodge No. 141 of the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Program, Inc, and Jane Doe, and John Doe, Intervening Defendants.

Federated Publications, Inc, doing business as the Lansing State Journal, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City of Lansing, Defendant, and Capitol City Lodge No. 141 Of the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Program, Inc, Intervening Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 118184, 118186, Calendar No. 5.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued March 13, 2002.

Decided July 25, 2002.

Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. (by Charles E. Barbieri), Lansing, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. (by Mary Massaron Ross and Christine D. Oldani), Detroit, for the defendant-appellant.

Wilson, Lawler & Lett, P.L.C. (by Steven T. Lett and R. David Wilson), Lansing, for the intervening defendant-appellant.

George Killeen, Flint, State Lodge of Michigan.

Butzel, Long, P.C. (by Dawn Phillips Hertz), for the Michigan Press Association and the Herald Company, Inc. and (by James E. Stewart), for the Detroit News, Ann Arbor, and Kasiborski, Ronayne & Flaska, P.C. (by John J. Ronayne III), Detroit, for the Michigan Association of Broadcasters, etc. and Post-Newsweek Stations, Michigan, Inc.

Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, L.L.P. (by Herschel P. Fink and Cynthia G. Thomas), Detroit, for the Detroit Free Press, Inc.

MARKMAN, J.

In this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matter, we are called upon to consider whether the circuit court erred in concluding that city police department records regarding citizen-initiated investigations were not exempt from disclosure while records regarding department-initiated investigations were exempt from disclosure under M.C.L. § 15.243(1)(s)(ix). We take this opportunity to clarify the appropriate standards of appellate review of the circuit court's determination in a FOIA dispute and the method by which the circuit court is required to perform its analysis under § 243(1)(s) of the FOIA.

First, we hold that the application of exemptions requiring legal determinations are reviewed under a de novo standard, while application of exemptions requiring determinations of a discretionary nature, such as the one presented here, are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Second, we hold that M.C.L. § 15.240(4) of the FOIA specifically places the burden of proof on the public body to show that the public record is exempt from disclosure. Third, in applying the public interest balancing test, the circuit court should consider the fact that records have been made exemptible under § 243(1)(s). Fourth, the "particular instance" language set forth in § 243(1)(s) requires the circuit court to analyze the FOIA request to determine whether further categorization of the requested records is required in order to determine whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. If further categorization is required to perform the balancing test, the circuit court should direct the public body to assist it in reasonably categorizing the sought-after records.

Because the city released the records regarding citizen-initiated complaints, that issue has been rendered moot. Further, with regard to the department-initiated complaints, we remand this matter to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the principles expressed in this opinion.

I. FOIA OVERVIEW

The Michigan Legislature enacted FOIA, M.C.L. § 15.231 et seq., to provide for the "disclosure of `public records' in the possession of a `public body.'" Kent Co. Deputy Sheriffs Assoc. v. Kent Co. Sheriff, 463 Mich. 353, 360, 616 N.W.2d 677 (2000), quoting Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Bd. of Ed., 455 Mich. 285, 292, 565 N.W.2d 650 (1997). Affording such public disclosure effects the state's policy of providing "full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent the people as public officials." MCL 15.231(2).

When a party desires to inspect or receive a copy of a public record, it "shall make a written request [of the public body] for the public record...."¹ M.C.L. § 15.235(1). After receiving a FOIA request, a public body may grant, deny, grant in part, deny in part, or issue a notice extending (for not more than ten business days) the period for responding to the FOIA request. MCL 15.235(2)(a), (b), (c), (d). If a public body denies the request, in full or in part, it must explain the basis, under the FOIA or another statute, for its denial. MCL 15.235(4)(a). A denial may be based upon a record's inclusion in one of the enumerated classes of exemptible records set forth in § 243.

Once a public body denies a FOIA request, the requesting party may either submit a written appeal to the head of that public body or commence an action in circuit court. MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice upholding the denial of disclosure, reverse the denial of disclosure in part and issue a written notice upholding the denial of disclosure in part, or issue a notice extending the period of response for a period not exceeding ten days. M.C.L. § 15.240(2)(a), (b), (c), (d). If the public body upholds its decision to deny the request, in full or in part, the requesting party may then seek judicial review. MCL 15.240(3).

At issue in the instant case is the FOIA exemption applicable to personnel records of a law enforcement agency, § 243(1)(s)(ix), which provides as follows:

(1) A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act:

* * *

(s) Unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance, public records of a law enforcement agency, the release of which would do any of the following:

* * *

(ix) Disclose personnel records of law enforcement agencies.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In 1998, plaintiff, Federated Publications (doing business as The Lansing State Journal), submitted a FOIA request to defendant, city of Lansing, requesting disclosure of

any reports or other documents regarding complaints investigated by the Lansing Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau for the time period of January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997. To the extent you believe the officers' identities may be subject to a privacy exemption, the names of the officers may be concealed, though the content of the reports and complaints themselves must be provided.

The city denied plaintiff's request, asserting that the records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to § 243(1)(s)(ix), among other provisions of law.² Instead, the city voluntarily disclosed a "statistical summary of internal affairs investigations for the year 1997." In response to the city's denial of its FOIA request, plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the city council president. MCL 15.240(1)(a). Plaintiff argued that the public interest in the subject matter of its request required disclosure of the records that it had sought. In response, the city provided a more detailed explanation of its position in opposition to plaintiff's FOIA request.

Plaintiff subsequently sued under FOIA for disclosure, and both parties unsuccessfully moved for summary disposition. The circuit court observed that it must, first, determine whether the records were indeed law enforcement personnel records, and, second, weigh the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in nondisclosure "in each particular instance."³

Upon consideration of the various interests at stake, the court ordered the release of all internal affairs investigation records, except those relating to department-generated complaints. Shortly after the circuit court's decision, the city, as well as intervening defendant Capital City Lodge, filed an emergency motion in the Court of Appeals for a stay of the circuit court proceedings. After initially granting the motion, the Court of Appeals vacated its order. Without taking any further action, the city then released the non-exempt citizen-generated complaint records to plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the circuit court's decision in part and reversed in part. After observing that "FOIA embodies this state's strong public policy favoring public access to government information," the Court stated that defendants failed to satisfy their statutory burden of producing evidence explaining why the public interest in nondisclosure of the records outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Consequently, it ruled that all the requested records were subject to disclosure. Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued November 14, 2000 (Docket Nos. 218331, 218332).

Defendants filed separate applications for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted leave, limited to "whether the requested files were exempt from disclosure under § 243(1)(s)(ix)...." 465 Mich. 910, 638 N.W.2d 747 (2001).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We are required in thi case to determine whether the circuit court properly applied § 243(1)(s)(ix) in determining that the department-initiated records were exempt and that the citizen-initiated investigation records were not exempt under the FOIA. This Court has not had prior occasion to enunciate the specific standard of review applicable to this inquiry.⁴ We conclude that a circuit court's decision regarding the applicability of exemptions to public records does not automatically require de novo review.

Although the FOIA expressly addresses the standard that governs a circuit court's review of a public body's own determination of what public records must be disclosed,⁵ it is silent regarding the standard that governs appellate review of the circuit court's...