MCL § 15.235 – Requests to inspect or receive copies; response requirements
Table of Contents
Code Details
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 442 of 1976
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
Sec. 5.(1) Except as provided in section 3, a person desiring to inspect or receive a copy of a public record shall make a written request for the public record to the FOIA coordinator of a public body. A written request made by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic transmission is not received by a public body’s FOIA coordinator until 1 business day after the electronic transmission is made. However, if a written request is sent by electronic mail and delivered to the public body’s spam or junk-mail folder, the request is not received until 1 day after the public body first becomes aware of the written request. The public body shall note in its records both the time a written request is delivered to its spam or junk-mail folder and the time the public body first becomes aware of that request.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the person making the request, a public body shall, subject to subsection (10), respond to a request for a public record within 5 business days after the public body receives the request by doing 1 of the following:
(a) Granting the request.
(b) Issuing a written notice to the requesting person denying the request.
(c) Granting the request in part and issuing a written notice to the requesting person denying the request in part.
(d) Issuing a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the public body shall respond to the request. A public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular request.
(3) Failure to respond to a request under subsection (2) constitutes a public body’s final determination to deny the request if either of the following applies:
(a) The failure was willful and intentional.
(b) The written request included language that conveyed a request for information within the first 250 words of the body of a letter, facsimile, electronic mail, or electronic mail attachment, or specifically included the words, characters, or abbreviations for “freedom of information”, “information”, “FOIA”, “copy”, or a recognizable misspelling of such, or appropriate legal code reference to this act, on the front of an envelope or in the subject line of an electronic mail, letter, or facsimile cover page.
(4) In a civil action to compel a public body’s disclosure of a public record under section 10, the court shall assess damages against the public body under section 10(7) if the court has done both of the following:
(a) Determined that the public body has not complied with subsection (2).
(b) Ordered the public body to disclose or provide copies of all or a portion of the public record.
(5) A written notice denying a request for a public record in whole or in part is a public body’s final determination to deny the request or portion of that request. The written notice must contain:
(a) An explanation of the basis under this act or other statute for the determination that the public record, or portion of that public record, is exempt from disclosure, if that is the reason for denying all or a portion of the request.
(b) A certificate that the public record does not exist under the name given by the requester or by another name reasonably known to the public body, if that is the reason for denying the request or a portion of the request.
(c) A description of a public record or information on a public record that is separated or deleted under section 14, if a separation or deletion is made.
(d) A full explanation of the requesting person’s right to do either of the following:
(i) Submit to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word “appeal” and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of the disclosure denial.
(ii) Seek judicial review of the denial under section 10.
(e) Notice of the right to receive attorneys’ fees and damages as provided in section 10 if, after judicial review, the court determines that the public body has not complied with this section and orders disclosure of all or a portion of a public record.
(6) The individual designated in section 6 as responsible for the denial of the request shall sign the written notice of denial.
(7) If a public body issues a notice extending the period for a response to the request, the notice must specify the reasons for the extension and the date by which the public body will do 1 of the following:
(a) Grant the request.
(b) Issue a written notice to the requesting person denying the request.
(c) Grant the request in part and issue a written notice to the requesting person denying the request in part.
(8) If a public body makes a final determination to deny in whole or in part a request to inspect or receive a copy of a public record or portion of that public record, the requesting person may do either of the following:
(a) Appeal the denial to the head of the public body under section 10.
(b) Commence a civil action, under section 10.
(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act to the contrary, a public body that maintains a law enforcement records management system and stores public records for another public body that subscribes to the law enforcement records management system is not in possession of, retaining, or the custodian of, a public record stored on behalf of the subscribing public body. If the public body that maintains a law enforcement records management system receives a written request for a public record that is stored on behalf of a subscribing public body, the public body that maintains the law enforcement records management system shall, within 10 business days after receipt of the request, give written notice to the requesting person identifying the subscribing public body and stating that the requesting person shall submit the request to the subscribing public body. As used in this subsection, “law enforcement records management system” means a data storage system that may be used voluntarily by subscribers, including any subscribing public bodies, to share information and facilitate intergovernmental collaboration in the provision of law enforcement services.
(10) A person making a request under subsection (1) may stipulate that the public body’s response under subsection (2) be electronically mailed, delivered by facsimile, or delivered by first-class mail. This subsection does not apply if the public body lacks the technological capability to provide an electronically mailed response.
MCL § 15.235 Summary
This Michigan statute outlines the procedures and requirements for public bodies to respond to requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It details how requests are received, the strict timelines for responses, what constitutes a proper denial, and the consequences for failing to comply. Essentially, it ensures transparency by mandating that government entities either provide the requested records, deny them with proper justification, or indicate a need for a brief extension, all within specific timeframes. It also establishes the avenues for appealing a denial.
Purpose of MCL § 15.235
The legislative intent behind this section of Michigan’s FOIA is to establish a clear, consistent, and enforceable framework for how public bodies in Michigan handle requests for public records. It aims to prevent arbitrary delays or rejections by government agencies and ensure timely access to information for citizens, journalists, and legal professionals. By setting specific deadlines, requiring detailed explanations for denials, and outlining appeal processes, MCL § 15.235 strengthens government transparency and accountability. It addresses the problem of potential bureaucratic stonewalling, ensuring that the public’s right to information is met efficiently and fairly, thereby fostering an informed citizenry and enabling oversight of government operations.
Real-World Example of MCL § 15.235
Imagine Sarah, a concerned citizen, wants to know the details of a recent public safety incident in her town. She suspects the local police department might have mishandled the situation. To investigate, she sends an email to the City of Springdale’s FOIA coordinator, clearly stating her request for all police reports and incident logs related to the specific date and location, including the words “Freedom of Information Act request” in the subject line.
Under MCL § 15.235(1), the city’s FOIA coordinator officially receives Sarah’s electronic request one business day after she sends it. According to MCL § 15.235(2), the city now has 5 business days to respond.
Scenario 1 (Grant): Within 5 business days, the City of Springdale emails Sarah a link to the requested documents, with some sensitive personal information of involved parties redacted, as permitted by other FOIA sections. This is a partial grant, which falls under subsection (2)(c).
Scenario 2 (Deny): Within 5 business days, the city sends Sarah a written notice denying her request, stating that the records are part of an ongoing criminal investigation and therefore exempt under MCL § 15.243(1)(b) (a different FOIA section). Crucially, this denial notice, as required by MCL § 15.235(5), includes the specific legal basis for denial, a description of any information separated or deleted, and a clear explanation of her right to appeal the denial to the head of the public body or to commence a civil action.
Scenario 3 (Extension): Within 5 business days, the city sends Sarah a notice explaining that due to the large volume of records and the need for extensive review and redaction, they need an additional 10 business days to respond. This notice, compliant with MCL § 15.235(7), specifies the reasons for the extension and the new date by which they will respond. They cannot issue another extension for this same request.
If the City of Springdale failed to respond at all within 5 business days (or the extended 10 business days), and Sarah’s initial email clearly indicated a FOIA request, this would constitute a final denial, allowing Sarah to pursue an appeal or legal action under MCL § 15.235(3) and (8).
Related Statutes
- MCL § 15.231 (Freedom of Information Act; Short Title): This introductory section establishes the FOIA and declares its purpose to provide the public with full and complete information regarding government affairs. It sets the foundational principle for which MCL § 15.235 provides the procedural details.
- MCL § 15.233 (Public Records; Right to Inspect or Receive Copies; Subscriptions): This section defines what constitutes a “public record” and affirms the general right of any person to inspect or receive copies of such records. MCL § 15.235 then specifies how that right is exercised through the request and response mechanism.
- MCL § 15.240 (Appeal of Denial of Disclosure; Civil Action; Venue; De Novo Review): This crucial section, directly referenced in MCL § 15.235(4), (5)(d), and (8), outlines the process for appealing a public body’s denial of a FOIA request, either through an internal appeal to the head of the public body or by commencing a civil action in court. It also details potential damages and attorney fees if the public body fails to comply.
- MCL § 15.243 (Exemptions from Disclosure; Withholding of Information): This statute lists various categories of public records that are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. MCL § 15.235(5)(a) requires a public body to cite the specific exemption from MCL § 15.243 (or another statute) when denying a request.
- MCL § 15.244 (Fees for Searches, Review, and Duplication; Waiver or Reduction; Affidavit; Deposit): This section details how public bodies can charge fees for processing FOIA requests, including costs for searching, reviewing, and copying records. These fee provisions often come into play during the response process described in MCL § 15.235, as a public body’s response may include a fee estimate.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 15.235
Courts in Michigan frequently interpret and apply MCL § 15.235 when disputes arise over a public body’s handling of FOIA requests. Here are examples of how courts have addressed aspects of this statute:
- In *Schumaker v. Grosse Pointe Public School System*, 2017 WL 1383796 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (unpublished), the Michigan Court of Appeals discussed the requirements for a public body’s denial notice under MCL § 15.235(5). The court affirmed that a denial must adequately explain the basis for the denial, including the specific statutory exemption relied upon. If the explanation is insufficient, it may violate the statute’s requirements, potentially leading to an order for disclosure and the assessment of damages or attorney fees.
*(You can find more information about this case on Google Scholar by searching for “Schumaker v. Grosse Pointe Public School System” here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Schumaker+v.+Grosse+Pointe+Public+School+System%22+MCL+15.235)*
- The Michigan Court of Appeals in *Neal v. Department of Corrections*, 2016 WL 4073356 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (unpublished), addressed the timing of responses and what constitutes a final denial under MCL § 15.235(2) and (3). The court reiterated the public body’s obligation to respond within the statutory five business days (or extended period) and clarified that a failure to do so, especially when the request clearly signals a FOIA inquiry, can be deemed a final denial, opening the door for the requester to pursue legal action.
*(You can find more information about this case on Google Scholar by searching for “Neal v. Department of Corrections” here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Neal+v.+Department+of+Corrections%22+MCL+15.235)*
These cases illustrate the judiciary’s role in enforcing the procedural requirements of MCL § 15.235, ensuring that public bodies adhere to the letter and spirit of the FOIA when responding to requests for public records.
Why MCL § 15.235 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
MCL § 15.235 is profoundly important in Michigan personal injury litigation because it dictates the process for obtaining crucial evidence from public entities. When someone suffers an injury due to another’s negligence, often the information needed to build their case is held by a government agency.
- Accessing Critical Evidence: Personal injury claims frequently rely on public records. For example, after a car accident, a plaintiff’s attorney might need to request police reports, traffic camera footage, 911 call recordings, or records of road maintenance from municipal or state police departments, sheriff’s offices, or public works departments. Similarly, a slip-and-fall case on public property might require incident reports or inspection logs. MCL § 15.235 ensures that these requests are handled in a structured and timely manner, preventing indefinite delays that could jeopardize a personal injury case.
- Timeliness is Key: Personal injury cases often have strict statutes of limitations and require prompt investigation. The 5-business-day response window (and limited 10-day extension) mandated by MCL § 15.235 is vital. This ensures that attorneys can acquire necessary documents—like accident investigation reports or witness statements—without undue delay, allowing them to assess liability, prepare claims, and meet deadlines.
- Building a Stronger Case: The detailed requirements for denying a FOIA request under MCL § 15.235(5) are also beneficial. If a public body denies access, they must explain the specific legal basis (e.g., a record is part of an ongoing investigation, MCL § 15.243(1)(b)). This explanation helps a personal injury attorney understand why a record is being withheld and explore alternative ways to obtain the information or challenge the denial through an appeal or lawsuit, as provided by MCL § 15.235(8).
- Leveraging Non-Compliance: If a public body fails to respond properly within the statutory period, MCL § 15.235(3) deems it a final denial. This allows a plaintiff’s attorney to immediately appeal or file a civil action to compel disclosure under MCL § 15.240, where the court can assess damages and attorney fees against the non-compliant public body. This provides a powerful incentive for public bodies to adhere to their FOIA obligations, aiding in the efficient discovery of evidence for personal injury claims.
- Government Accountability: In cases where a public entity might be a defendant (e.g., a defective road leading to an accident), prompt and proper FOIA responses facilitated by MCL § 15.235 contribute to holding government bodies accountable. Transparency in records related to public safety, infrastructure, or employee conduct can directly impact the success of a personal injury lawsuit against a governmental unit.
For both plaintiffs and defense counsel in personal injury matters, understanding and utilizing MCL § 15.235 is fundamental for effective discovery, ensuring that all relevant public records are either disclosed promptly or denied with legally sound justification, providing clear pathways for legal recourse.