King v. Michigan State Police Department
303 Mich. App. 162
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In Jan 2010 the Michigan State Police (MSP) received FOIA requests via a law firm for files relating to suspect Christopher Busch in the Oakland County Child Killings; the firm's FOIA form listed client "Barry King."
- MSP estimated processing costs ~ $11,500 and required a ~50% deposit; plaintiffs later paid the fees and MSP produced voluminous records in Dec 2010 but withheld certain materials as exempt.
- Plaintiffs sued in circuit court challenging MSP’s withholding (notably polygraph reports) and seeking fee reimbursement and other relief; Christopher King was later added as plaintiff.
- The trial court conducted in camera review of polygraph materials, upheld MSP’s withholding under the Forensic Polygraph Examiners Act (FPEA), ordered MSP to refund part of the processing fee ($5,600), directed MSP to confirm nonexistence of a requested PowerPoint, reserved attorney-fee issues, and later awarded plaintiffs $2,500 in sanctions for MSP’s refusal to admit Barry King’s standing.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the FPEA-based withholding, reversed the sanctions award, vacated the partial refund order (remanding fee calculation), and rejected MSP’s arguments that the suit was premature or moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are polygraph reports subject to disclosure under FOIA? | FOIA disclosure required; plaintiffs argued public interest and alleged prior disclosures contradicted withholding. | FPEA and related statutes prohibit disclosure of polygraph reports to third parties; exemption under FOIA §13(l)(d) applies. | Held: MSP properly withheld polygraph reports — FPEA bars disclosure, so FOIA exemption applies. |
| Were attorney fees as sanctions (MCR 2.313) warranted for MSP’s refusal to admit Barry King’s standing? | Plaintiffs sought fees for costs incurred proving admissions (requested $2,500 sanction). | MSP argued reasonable grounds to deny admission because FOIA request came from law firm, not clearly from client. | Held: Reversed — sanctions improper; plaintiffs never proved the matter at hearing/trial as required under MCR 2.313, so fee award abused discretion. |
| Was the trial court’s $5,600 partial refund of processing fees appropriate? | Plaintiffs argued the requests were limited to Busch and the fee was excessive; sought refund. | MSP said records were interrelated and separation required same search/review labor; provided detailed fee breakdown. | Held: Vacated — trial court failed to support its reduced fee with record facts; remanded for proper fee calculation under FOIA. |
| Was the suit premature or moot because MSP had "granted" the FOIA requests or produced records? | Plaintiffs maintained the suit was timely because MSP effectively denied portions (withheld exempt material) and dispute remained. | MSP argued it had granted requests / produced records so the action was premature or moot. | Held: Affirmed trial court — action was not premature or moot; MSP’s communications constituted partial denials or failures to timely respond, and contested exemptions and fees kept controversy live. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Duncan Twp., 294 Mich. App. 401 (discusses de novo review of FOIA legal determinations)
- Herald Co., Inc. v. Eastern Mich. Univ. Bd. of Regents, 475 Mich. 463 (explains FOIA exemptions and standards of review for factual findings)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Tomkins, 481 Mich. 184 (statutory interpretation principles)
- In re Petition of Delaware, 91 Mich. App. 399 (recognizes polygrapher privilege under FPEA)
- Midwest Bus. Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 288 Mich. App. 334 (standards for sanctions under requests for admission)
- Tollman v. Cheboygan Area Sch., 183 Mich. App. 123 (FOIA fee computation and that fees must reflect actual costs)