Summary — HB 5749 (Freedom of Information Act amendments — law enforcement disciplinary records)
Status and procedural history
- House substitute (H-1) adopted; passed the Michigan House on December 13, 2024 (roll call reported) with immediate effect.
- Referred to the Committee on Government Operations (referred 12/18/2024). Public hearing held 03/07/2025. (Bill amends section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.243.)
Purpose and intent
- HB 5749 is intended to increase public access to records documenting complaints, investigations, findings, and dispositions in disciplinary proceedings involving law enforcement officers or agents. The bill clarifies that releasing such disciplinary records is not an “unwarranted invasion” of privacy and therefore generally may not be withheld under FOIA on privacy grounds.
Key provisions and changes
- Makes explicit that the release of “law enforcement disciplinary records” is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy for purposes of FOIA exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(a)).
- Defines “law enforcement disciplinary records” broadly to include, at minimum:
- Records of any complaint, allegation, or charge against an officer/agent;
- The name of the officer/agent against whom a complaint was made;
- All records/documents/files related to investigation, adjudication, or disposition;
- Transcripts and exhibits from disciplinary proceedings;
- Findings by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) or other investigative/adjudicatory bodies;
- Final written opinions or memoranda supporting dispositions (including factual findings, analysis of alleged misconduct, discipline imposed, and supporting data).
- Limits the exemption for “technical infractions” (minor, internal administrative rule violations that meet specific criteria) — disciplinary records for such infractions are excluded from the definition.
- Revises existing FOIA personnel-record exemptions: removes a broad personnel-records exemption for law enforcement and replaces it with a narrower exemption that continues to protect only:
- An officer’s medical history; and
- Use of employee assistance programs, mental-health services, or substance-abuse services — unless that use is mandated by a disciplinary proceeding whose records are not exempt.
- Adjusts the FOIA “public interest” balancing language so that records described as exempt are withheld only if the public interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure (i.e., a higher bar for nondisclosure in some contexts).
- Retains other law-enforcement investigation exemptions where disclosure would, for example, interfere with proceedings, reveal confidential sources, disclose investigative techniques, or endanger safety.
Who would be affected
- State and local law enforcement agencies and oversight bodies (including MCOLES) — their disciplinary records would become more subject to FOIA requests.
- Law enforcement officers and agents — names and detailed records about complaints, investigations, findings, and discipline would generally be disclosable (except for protected medical/EAP/mental-health/substance-use records as specified).
- Complainants, witnesses, and the public — greater access to outcomes and supporting materials from disciplinary matters.
- Legal and records staff responsible for processing FOIA requests and redactions.
Fiscal impact
- House Fiscal Agency analysis: no fiscal impact on state or local governments.
Support and opposition (recorded at committee)
- Support: Cooley Innocence Project, Reason Foundation, Citizens for Prison Reform, ACLU of Michigan, Mackinac Center for Public Policy (testimony/support listed).
- Opposition: Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (testified), Michigan Sheriffs’ Association (indicated opposition).
Practical implications and considerations
- The bill significantly increases transparency of law enforcement disciplinary processes by making a wide range of documents presumptively public.
- Potential friction points include balancing safety/confidentiality concerns (investigative integrity, witness safety) with disclosure, and implementing redaction practices to protect narrowly exempt information (medical, EAP usage).
- Agencies will need to adjust FOIA processes and possibly personnel policies to comply with the revised exemptions and balancing standard.
