Case: The Invisible Institute v. Michigan State Police

The Invisible Institute and Detroit Metro Times (plaintiffs) are media organizations in Michigan seeking to contribute to developing a nationwide database that compiles information on police officers and police misconduct. The database would include the identifying information of police officers so journalists can track officers moving between agencies and departments seeking to evade misconduct consequences. On January 4, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a request under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MFOIA) requesting the Michigan State Police (defendant) to disclose the identities of current and former police officers. Specifically, the request asked for the names, ages, employment histories, and rank/position/location information of certified and uncertified police officers employed in Michigan. Certified officers are those who maintain good standing to serve as officers in Michigan. On January 10, 2023, the defendant granted and denied the plaintiffs’ MFOIA request, refusing to provide the names, identifying numbers, and other information covered by the MFOIA personal privacy exemption.

On December 1, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant for not giving them the information under MFOIA. They filed the complaint in the Michigan Court of Claims, and the case was assigned to Christopher P. Yates. This is an individual action, and the Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Steinberg of the University of Michigan Law School Civil Rights Litigation Initiative. The Plaintiffs argued that the public interest in disclosing the names, ages, employment history, and identifying numbers of both certified and uncertified police officers outweighed the public interest in not disclosing this information (the privacy of the officers). The plaintiffs argued that knowing this information helped increase the defendant’s accountability, responsibility, and transparency to the public. Moreover, the plaintiffs argued that contributing to the nationwide database would make it easier for journalists to inform the public of officers potentially evading the ramifications of misconduct proceedings.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs requested that the court issue judgments declaring that the defendant had violated MFOIA by failing to disclose all information lawfully requested for both certified and uncertified officers. The plaintiffs also requested that the court issue an order requiring the defendant to produce all of the data from the MFOIA request. Lastly, the plaintiffs requested attorney’s fees.

On January 26, 2024, the defendant filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that identifying the officers would endanger officer safety. The Defendant cited worries about crimes against policing, like police killings, in response to the public information. The parties continued exchanging briefs about the defendant’s summary disposition brief. As of March 21, 2026, the case is ongoing.