State News v. Michigan State University
| Decision Date | 16 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | (Calendar No. 3).,Docket No. 133682. |
| Citation | 753 N.W.2d 20,481 Mich. 692 |
| Parties | STATE NEWS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Stuart J. Dunnings III, Charles Koop, and Kahla D. Arvizu, for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Michigan Sheriffs' Association, and the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, amici curiae.
This case involves the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) privacy and law-enforcement-purposes exemptions to a police incident report. Following a notorious assault of several Michigan State University students in a dormitory room, plaintiff State News made a FOIA request that defendant Michigan State University disclose the report. Michigan State resisted this request, claiming that the FOIA privacy and law-enforcement-purposes exemptions permitted it to withhold the requested report. Litigation between the parties ensued, and the Court of Appeals eventually held that the circuit court had erred in determining that the entire report could be withheld. In its decision remanding the case to the circuit court, the Court of Appeals observed that the "subsequent availability of information as a result of later court proceedings in the criminal justice system may well strengthen or weaken the arguments of the parties to a FOIA dispute regarding the applicability" of the exemptions at issue and instructed the circuit court to consider the effect of that availability.1
We conclude that this instruction from the Court of Appeals was erroneous and hold that unless the exemption asserted provides otherwise, the applicability of a FOIA exemption is measured when the public body asserts the exemption. The passage of time and the course of events after the assertion of a FOIA exception do not affect whether a public record was initially exempt from disclosure.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and remand this case to the circuit court, in accordance with the remainder of the Court of Appeals judgment that ordered an in camera inspection of the police incident report for the circuit court to decide what information is exempt from disclosure and to make particularized findings to support its conclusion, as well as to separate, if possible, the exempt material from the nonexempt material.
On March 2, 2006, State News submitted a FOIA request to Michigan State seeking disclosure of a police incident report that detailed an incident at Hubbard Hall, a student dormitory at Michigan State, on February 23, 2006. Three male assailants, one of whom was a Michigan State student, allegedly entered a dorm room, threatened three victims with a gun, and poured gasoline on one of the individuals while threatening to light him on fire. The three men were later arraigned on charges of home invasion, felonious assault, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. In a story published several days later, the State News reported the names of the three men.
Michigan State denied the FOIA request, citing the privacy exemption2 and subsections 1(b)(i) to (iii) of the law-enforcement-purposes exemption.3 State News appealed administratively, and in a letter replying to State News, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K Simon affirmed the original determination to deny the FOIA request. State News then filed a complaint in the circuit court, accompanied by a motion to show cause why Michigan State should not disclose the report and a motion for summary disposition.4 The circuit court ordered a show cause hearing. Michigan State, in its response, attached affidavits from its FOIA officer, the Michigan State University Chief of Police, and the Ingham County Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney to support its decision to withhold the report. The affidavits stated that the police incident report contained "incident report persons sheets,"5 "narrative incident reports,"6 physical evidence documents,7 inmate profiles and booking photographs, and other information about the suspects.
At the show cause hearing, the circuit court heard arguments from the parties and ruled from the bench in favor of Michigan State, concluding that the report in its entirety was exempt under both the privacy exemption and subsections 1(b)(i) to (iii) of the law-enforcement-purposes exemption. However, the court did not inspect the police incident report in camera before it reached its decision. With respect to the privacy exemption, the court found that some of the information sought, such as names, addresses, birthdates, driver's license numbers, and criminal histories of the accused, victims, and witnesses, was information "of a personal nature" and that its disclosure would not further the core purpose of FOIA of shedding light on the workings of government. Thus, according to the circuit court, disclosure of this information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Turning to the law-enforcement-purposes exemption, the court concluded that the analysis for the privacy exemption also applied to subsection 1(b)(iii) of that exemption, which protects against disclosure of investigating records that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. With respect to subsections 1(b)(i) and (ii) of the law-enforcement-purposes exemption, the court found that Michigan State had made a particularized showing that disclosure of the report would interfere with law-enforcement proceedings or deprive a person of a fair trial. The court relied on affidavits from the police chief and the chief assistant prosecuting attorney stating that the potential existed for retaliation against witnesses and victims, tainting of the jury pool, and tainting of witnesses' testimony if the report was disclosed to the public. The circuit court dismissed State News's complaint with prejudice.
State News appealed, and the Court of Appeals, in a published opinion per curiam, remanded this case to the circuit court for further proceedings.8 The panel identified several errors committed by the circuit court. It first addressed the circuit court's handling of the law-enforcement-purposes exemption. Citing Evening News Ass'n v. City of Troy,9 the Court of Appeals held that with respect to subsections 1(b)(i) and (ii), the circuit court had failed to offer particularized reasons to justify its conclusion that the entire police incident report was exempt from disclosure. With respect to subsection 1(b)(iii), the panel, relying on United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm for Freedom of the Press,10 suggested the possibility that the names or addresses of the suspects or other information identifying them in the police incident report might be exemptible.
The panel then addressed the circuit court's handling of the privacy exemption. It followed the two-part test for the privacy exemption developed by this Court in Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Bd of Ed,11 and Mager v. Dep't of State Police.12 Concerning the first prong of the test, the panel stated that, "as a hypothetical matter," the names and addresses of the victims, witnesses, and suspects and other information identifying them could constitute information "of a personal nature," but that the passage of time and the course of events might have rendered some, if not all, of this information matters of public knowledge and therefore not of a personal nature.13 Concerning the second prong, which requires that the disclosure would create a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy, the panel tentatively concluded that Michigan State had failed to demonstrate that the release of the police incident report would shed no light on its conduct as a public body. However, it declined to reach a firm conclusion with respect to the second prong because the panel could not review the report, which was not part of the circuit court record.
Next, the Court of Appeals, again citing Evening News, held that on remand the circuit court should review the requested information in camera. In addition, the panel held that the exempt and nonexempt material should be separated to the extent practicable, with the nonexempt material made available to State News.14
Michigan State sought leave to appeal in this Court. We granted leave to appeal on a limited basis and denied leave in all other respects.15
This Court reviews de novo as a question of law issues of statutory interpretation.16 We give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed in the language of the statute by interpreting the words phrases, and clauses according to their plain meaning.17
"limited to the issue whether the Court of Appeals erred in instructing [the circuit court], on remand, regarding the "personal nature" of public records covered by the Freedom of Information Act privacy exemption[18] or the law enforcement purposes privacy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gardner
...Often, I accede to the opinion of the majority. For instance, I recently joined the majority opinion in State News v. Michigan State Univ., 481 Mich. 692, 753 N.W.2d 20 (2008), even though it cited Michigan Federation of Teachers v. Univ. of Michigan, 481 Mich. 657, 753 N.W.2d 28 (2008), in......
-
Practical Political Consulting Inc. v. Sec'y Of State
...State News v. Mich. State Univ., 274 Mich.App. 558, 567, 735 N.W.2d 649 (2007) ( State News I ), rev'd in part on other grounds 481 Mich. 692, 753 N.W.2d 20 (2008). III. THE FOIA The purpose of Michigan's FOIA statute is to provide the people of Michigan full and complete information regard......
-
Bisio v. City of the Vill. of Clarkston
...28 (2008). "This Court [also] reviews de novo as a question of law issues of statutory interpretation." State News v. Mich. State Univ. , 481 Mich. 692, 699, 753 N.W.2d 20 (2008). "We give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed in the language of the statute by interpreting the wor......
-
King v. Oakland Cnty. Prosecutor
...that defendant possessed nonexempt records at the time of the denials of plaintiffs' FOIA requests. See State News v. Mich. State Univ., 481 Mich. 692, 695, 704, 753 N.W.2d 20 (2008) (stating that “[t]he passage of time and the course of events after the assertion of a FOIA exception do not......