Dennis Tousignant v. City of Iron River
329893
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- In Aug 2014 Tousignant requested Iron River Police Department policy manuals and disciplinary rules covering Jan 1, 2013–Aug 19, 2014.
- The police chief denied the request citing an incorrect FOIA exemption code but asserting the records were exempt under law-enforcement exemptions for operational instructions and staff manuals (MCL 15.243(1)(s)(v) and (vi)).
- Tousignant filed suit seeking disclosure and asked the trial court to review the claimed exempt records.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court treated § 243(1)(s) as creating a "presumption of exemption," required Tousignant to plead a public-interest showing that outweighed nondisclosure, and granted dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
- Tousignant amended his complaint with general statements of public interest (e.g., use of force, parking enforcement); the court again granted dismissal and Tousignant appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the public body bears the burden to prove an exemption and the trial court must perform the required § 243(1)(s) balancing (including in camera review if appropriate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 243(1)(s) creates a presumption of exemption | No presumption; exemption not automatic | § 243(1)(s) reflects strong legislative preference for nondisclosure | Court: There is no legal presumption of exemption; trial court erred to treat it as dispositive (error of form, not necessarily substance) |
| Who bears the burden to justify nondisclosure under FOIA | Public body bears burden; plaintiff need not prove public-interest outweighs nondisclosure | Plaintiff must plead specific public-interest facts to overcome nondisclosure | Court: Burden remains on the public body to prove exemption; plaintiff not required to plead detailed balancing facts though specificity helps |
| Adequacy of Tousignant's amended complaint alleging public interest | General allegations about public interest in police rules suffice to require balancing | Allegations were too general; plaintiff failed to "trump" nondisclosure | Court: Dismissal was improper; trial court must perform balancing and may request public body assistance to categorize records |
| Whether trial court satisfied FOIA balancing before dismissal | Trial court did not perform required balancing or in camera review | Court can require specificity and may treat § 243(1)(s) as heavily weighty | Court: Trial court failed to do the requisite balancing; remand for further proceedings and in camera review as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Federated Publications, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich 98 (establishes that burden to justify nondisclosure is on the public body and that § 243(1)(s) prescribes a balancing test rather than shifting burden to requester)
- Eastern Michigan University Bd. of Regents v. Herald Co., Inc., 475 Mich 463 (explains that courts must consider the "particular instance" and competing interests without relying on generalities)
- Landry v. City of Dearborn, 259 Mich App 416 (reiterates public body bears burden to prove FOIA exemptions)
- Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. City of Southfield, 269 Mich App 275 (courts narrowly construe exemptions and place burden on public bodies to justify nondisclosure)