Case Summary
The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the City of Taylor must comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by the ACLU of Michigan seeking police misconduct records dating back to 2021.
The request covers documents involving allegations of racial profiling, racial discrimination, harassment, or excessive force by Taylor police officers.
Background
The ACLU filed a FOIA request seeking records related to police misconduct but was denied on the grounds that the request was overly broad and insufficiently specific. The ACLU argued that it could not provide more detail because it had never been allowed to view the records it sought
Court of Appeals Decision
In an unsigned opinion, a three‑judge panel rejected the city’s arguments and held that the FOIA request was sufficiently clear. The court emphasized that the request sought any documents “that relate, even minimally” to the listed categories of misconduct and criticized the city’s position as “mystifying”.
The court also rejected the city’s claim that the records were exempt due to a separate federal lawsuit involving police misconduct. The panel held that parallel litigation does not justify withholding public records under FOIA.
Reversal of Lower Court and Cost Award
The decision reverses a Wayne County Circuit Court ruling that had dismissed the FOIA case. The Court of Appeals ordered the City of Taylor to pay the costs associated with litigating the matter.
What Happens Next
The City of Taylor did not respond to inquiries regarding whether it plans to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Oh what secrets await to be revealed.
Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call 248-357-2550.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What records did the ACLU request?
A: Records involving allegations of racial profiling, racial discrimination, harassment, or excessive force by Taylor police officers.
Q: Why did the City of Taylor deny the request?
A: The city claimed the request was too broad and not specific enough to process.
Q: How did the Court of Appeals respond to that argument?
A: The court rejected it, stating the request clearly sought documents related to specific categories of misconduct and calling the city’s position “mystifying”.
Q: Did the federal lawsuit involving police misconduct affect the FOIA request?
A: No. The court held that parallel litigation does not justify withholding public records under FOIA.
Q: What is the immediate impact of the ruling?
A: The city must comply with the FOIA request and pay the ACLU’s litigation costs. It may still seek review by the Michigan Supreme Court
Q: If we withheld their pay and threatened termination. How fast do you think the public information we paid for would be released?
A: Probably yesterday
More Articles
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing”...
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing”...
More
A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was...
What is a Franks Hearing?
What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...
Michigan House Bill Proposes 32% Tax on Internet Devices for Kids
Taxed Again..? They're working on it.A newly introduced Michigan House bill would impose a 32% excise tax on smartphones, tablets, gaming systems, and other internet‑connected devices marketed to or primarily used by minors. Lawmakers backing the proposal argue the...
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms
The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...
Michigan judge charged in stealing from incapacitated adults
No Good Headline to Lead with HereSummary Federal prosecutors have charged a 36th District Court judge and three associates with orchestrating a long‑running financial scheme that diverted funds from incapacitated adults under court‑appointed guardianship. The...
