MCL § 15.233 – Public bodies subject to FOIA
Table of Contents
Code Details
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 442 of 1976
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
15.233 Public records; request requirements; right to inspect, copy, or receive; subscriptions; forwarding requests; file; inspection and examination; memoranda or abstracts; rules; compilation, summary, or report of information; creation of new public record; certified copies.
Sec. 3.
(1) Except as expressly provided in section 13, upon providing a public body’s FOIA coordinator with a written request that describes a public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record, a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of the requested public record of the public body. A request from a person, other than an individual who qualifies as indigent under section 4(2)(a), must include the requesting person’s complete name, address, and contact information, and, if the request is made by a person other than an individual, the complete name, address, and contact information of the person’s agent who is an individual. An address must be written in compliance with United States Postal Service addressing standards. Contact information must include a valid telephone number or electronic mail address. A person has a right to subscribe to future issuances of public records that are created, issued, or disseminated on a regular basis. A subscription is valid for up to 6 months, at the request of the subscriber, and is renewable. An employee of a public body who receives a request for a public record shall promptly forward that request to the freedom of information act coordinator.
(2) A freedom of information act coordinator shall keep a copy of all written requests for public records on file for no less than 1 year.
(3) A public body shall furnish a requesting person a reasonable opportunity for inspection and examination of its public records, and shall furnish reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts from its public records during the usual business hours. A public body may make reasonable rules necessary to protect its public records and to prevent excessive and unreasonable interference with the discharge of its functions. A public body shall protect public records from loss, unauthorized alteration, mutilation, or destruction.
(4) This act does not require a public body to make a compilation, summary, or report of information, except as required in section 11.
(5) This act does not require a public body to create a new public record, except as required in section 11, and to the extent required by this act for the furnishing of copies, or edited copies pursuant to section 14(1), of an already existing public record.
(6) The custodian of a public record shall, upon written request, furnish a requesting person a certified copy of a public record.
MCL § 15.233 Summary
This Michigan statute outlines the fundamental rights and procedures for individuals seeking to access public records from government bodies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). At its core, it grants any person the right to inspect, copy, or obtain copies of public records held by a public body, provided they submit a written request to the public body’s FOIA coordinator. This request must sufficiently describe the record sought and, for most individuals, include complete name, address, and contact information. The statute also allows for subscriptions to regularly issued public records for up to six months.
Furthermore, MCL § 15.233 places specific duties on public bodies: they must forward requests to their FOIA coordinator, maintain copies of requests for at least one year, and provide reasonable opportunities and facilities for record inspection. Public bodies are allowed to establish rules to protect their records and prevent disruption, and they are obligated to safeguard records from damage or unauthorized changes. Crucially, the statute clarifies that public bodies are generally not required to create new records or compile summaries, unless specifically mandated by other sections of the FOIA, and they must provide certified copies of records upon request.
Purpose of MCL § 15.233
The legislative intent behind this statute is to foster transparency and accountability within Michigan’s government entities. By establishing a clear process for public access to government records, MCL § 15.233 aims to empower citizens with the ability to scrutinize the actions of public officials and bodies. This access is vital for an informed citizenry, enabling individuals to monitor government spending, understand policy decisions, and hold public servants responsible. The statute addresses the potential for governmental secrecy by creating a presumption of public access, ensuring that information is readily available unless a specific exemption applies. It serves as a cornerstone of Michigan’s commitment to open government, strengthening democratic principles and public trust.
Real-World Example of MCL § 15.233
Imagine a concerned resident, Sarah, who lives near a municipal park. Her child recently suffered a fall on playground equipment, resulting in a minor injury. Sarah suspects the equipment might have been poorly maintained. To investigate, she decides to use her rights under FOIA.
Following the guidelines of MCL § 15.233, Sarah drafts a written request addressed to the city’s FOIA coordinator. In her letter, she describes the records she seeks: “All maintenance logs, inspection reports, and repair records for the playground equipment at [Name of Park], specifically for the swing set and slide, from the last two years.” She includes her full name, address, and email address.
Upon receiving the request, a city employee forwards it to the designated FOIA coordinator. The coordinator then searches for the requested documents. Within a reasonable timeframe, the city provides Sarah with copies of the maintenance records. Sarah reviews these documents during the city’s business hours, using facilities provided by the city hall, and notes that one of the inspection reports from six months prior indicated a loose bolt on the swing set that was never logged as repaired. This discovery could be crucial evidence if Sarah decides to pursue a personal injury claim against the city.
Related Statutes
Several other sections of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act are closely related to MCL § 15.233 and are often referenced in conjunction with it:
- MCL § 15.231 (Definitions): This section defines key terms used throughout the FOIA, such as “public body,” “public record,” and “person,” which are fundamental to understanding who is subject to the act and what types of information can be requested.
- MCL § 15.232 (Public body; duties): This outlines the general duties of public bodies under the FOIA, reinforcing their obligation to make public records available.
- MCL § 15.243 (Exemptions from disclosure; withholding information; public body as proprietor; entire public record): This crucial section, referred to as “section 13” in MCL § 15.233(1), lists the specific categories of information that a public body may or must withhold from public disclosure, such as personal privacy, attorney-client privilege, or law enforcement investigatory records.
- MCL § 15.241 (Fees; waivers or reductions; affidavit of indigence; appeal of fee or waiver decision): Referenced as “section 11” in MCL § 15.233(4) and (5), this statute details how public bodies can charge fees for fulfilling FOIA requests, provides conditions for fee waivers or reductions (e.g., for indigent), and outlines the process for appealing fee decisions.
- MCL § 15.235 (Response to request; time limits): This section dictates the timelines within which a public body must respond to a FOIA request, including acknowledging receipt, granting, denying, or extending the time for a response.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 15.233
Michigan courts have frequently interpreted different facets of MCL § 15.233, particularly concerning the sufficiency of a request, the duty of a public body to search for records, and the limitations on creating new records.
- In Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Bd. of Educ., 455 Mich. 285 (1997), the Michigan Supreme Court discussed what constitutes a “sufficiently described” public record, emphasizing that the request must enable the public body to find the record without undue difficulty. See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bradley+v.+Saranac+Community+Schools+Bd.+of+Educ.+455+Mich.+285
- The obligation not to create new public records, as stipulated in MCL § 15.233(5), has also been a point of judicial review. For instance, in Det. Free Press, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 303 Mich. App. 511 (2014), the court affirmed that FOIA generally does not compel a public body to generate new documents or perform data analysis to satisfy a request, even if such information could be derived from existing records. The duty is to provide existing records. See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Det.+Free+Press,+Inc.+v.+City+of+Detroit+303+Mich.+App.+511
- Further, cases like Herald Co. v. City of Bay City, 463 Mich. 118 (2000), have explored the extent of a public body’s duty to conduct a diligent search for requested records once a request has been made, underscoring the importance of MCL § 15.233’s requirement for a sufficiently descriptive request. See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Herald+Co.+v.+City+of+Bay+City+463+Mich.+118
These cases highlight the necessity of precise FOIA requests and the limitations on what a public body is required to produce under the act.
Why MCL § 15.233 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
For individuals involved in personal injury cases in Michigan, MCL § 15.233 is an incredibly powerful tool for gathering crucial evidence. When an injury occurs due to negligence involving a public entity or on public property, obtaining official government records can be pivotal for building a strong case. This statute allows plaintiffs and their attorneys to legally request and access documents that might otherwise be unavailable.
Here’s why it’s so important:
- Evidence Collection: Attorneys can utilize FOIA requests to obtain police reports, accident reconstruction reports, EMS records, 911 call transcripts, witness statements collected by public agencies, and even internal investigation reports. These documents often contain key details about how an accident occurred, who was involved, and the immediate aftermath, which can be critical for establishing fault.
- Establishing Negligence: In cases against a municipality or government agency (e.g., slip and fall on city property, car accident involving a public vehicle, injury from faulty public infrastructure), MCL § 15.233 enables the request of maintenance logs, inspection reports, repair records, records of previous complaints about a hazard, or policy and procedure documents. Such records can reveal a public body’s awareness of a dangerous condition or a failure to follow safety protocols, thereby proving negligence.
- Public Entity Liability: Understanding the policies and actions of a public body is essential when suing a governmental entity. This statute facilitates access to internal records that can shed light on decision-making processes, budgeting for safety, or even training records of employees whose actions may have contributed to an injury.
- Transparency and Accountability: Beyond direct evidence, the ability to request records under FOIA holds public bodies accountable. This transparency can influence settlement negotiations or trial outcomes, as public entities are aware that their records are accessible and can be used to demonstrate liability.
- Client Empowerment: For clients, knowing that their legal team can leverage this statute provides reassurance. It means that government entities cannot easily conceal information relevant to their injury claim, leveling the playing field and ensuring a more thorough investigation into the circumstances of their incident.
In essence, MCL § 15.233 serves as a critical access point to information that can directly impact the success of a personal injury claim, allowing for a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to litigation.