Rataj v. City of Romulus
306 Mich. App. 735
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Sept. 21, 2012 Michael Rataj submitted a FOIA request to the Romulus Police Department seeking records relating to an alleged on-duty assault by Officer Warren Jones on Aug. 1, 2012, including an unredacted incident report and video recording.
- RPD produced a redacted incident report (names, addresses, DOBs, phone numbers removed) and withheld the video and names at the arrestee’s request; RPD counsel cited privacy, personnel/discipline, and law-enforcement-investigation exemptions.
- Rataj appealed administratively and then filed suit under Michigan FOIA (MCL 15.231 et seq.). Defendants moved for summary disposition claiming multiple FOIA exemptions; plaintiff sought judgment under MCR 2.116(I)(2).
- The circuit court granted summary disposition for defendants, finding the video and names exempt under the privacy exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(a)) and denying plaintiff’s request for unredacted records and internal investigation/personnel files.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: it held the video and the names of the arrestee and officer are public records subject to disclosure; it affirmed the nondisclosure of home addresses, DOBs, phone numbers, and internal investigation and personnel records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the police video is a public record and exempt under the FOIA privacy exemption | Video is a public record; disclosure serves FOIA’s core purpose and furthers accountability | Video contains embarrassing personal information; disclosure would clearly unwarrantedly invade privacy | Video is a public record and disclosure is not barred by the privacy exemption; district court erred in withholding it |
| Whether the names of the arrestee and officer are "information of a personal nature" exempt from disclosure | Names are public and not personal information; disclosure furthers accountability | Names were redacted to protect privacy and safety of the arrestee | Names are not information of a personal nature and must be disclosed |
| Whether other personal data in the report (addresses, DOBs, phone numbers) must be disclosed | Such details are less relevant to accountability; plaintiff sought them | These items are personal and their disclosure would invade privacy | Addresses, DOBs, and phone numbers are exempt under the privacy exemption and may remain redacted |
| Whether internal investigation reports and personnel files must be disclosed | Plaintiff argued public interest in disclosure outweighs nondisclosure, especially given alleged pattern of misconduct | RPD argued disclosure would chill internal investigations and discipline processes; protected under MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) | Internal investigation reports and personnel records are exempt because public interest in nondisclosure outweighs disclosure in this instance; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mich Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel v. Univ. of Mich., 481 Mich 657 (2008) (articulates the two-prong FOIA privacy-exemption test and definitions of "personal" and balancing inquiry)
- Practical Political Consulting, Inc. v. Secretary of State, 287 Mich App 434 (2010) (frames public-interest balancing—FOIA’s core purpose is exposing government operations)
- Kent County Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass’n v. Kent County Sheriff, 463 Mich 353 (2000) (supports nondisclosure of internal law-enforcement investigatory and personnel records where disclosure would harm investigatory processes)
- Prins v. Michigan State Police, 291 Mich App 586 (2011) (assumed police-car video of an encounter is a public record for FOIA purposes)
- Herald Co. v. Bay City, 463 Mich 111 (2000) (describes FOIA as a pro-disclosure statute and guides narrow construction of exemptions)