FOIA 25-195: Reports on the office's own work — four case-tracking reports produced, performance reviews certified nonexistent, county reports withheld as attorney-client

Watchdog Alerts

Why isn’t this basic information available to the public?

1. The office produced four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 — reports that were already sitting in its system. In FOIA 25-134, 25-136 and 25-137 the same office certified that case statistics and case-processing figures did not exist. The records produced here show that at least some of that data was being generated and retained all along.
2. The office denied “reports provided to or prepared for county officials” on attorney-client privilege, then produced two budget memos addressed to the Board of County Commissioners. The privilege claim and the production are in the same packet. The office does not explain why some reports to county officials are privileged and others are not.
3. The FY 2024-25 budget memo itself offers “final review of any complex FOIA requests” as a service the office would provide if funded — the office proposing to review its own FOIA compliance.
4. The office certified that performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments do not exist, but does not describe the search it conducted or say who was asked. A certificate of nonexistence is only as good as the search behind it.
5. The office quoted $5,961.60 and a 270-day timeline to review roughly 2,400 case files, then produced ten documents with the response. It does not reconcile the estimate with what it actually produced.

Timing caveat. ProsecutorByKarpel went live in June 2024, so the 2023 case-tracking reports produced here predate the system. This page does not fault the office for how it generated those reports in 2023. The point is that the reports existed and were produced on request, which is relevant to earlier requests in which the office said comparable statistics did not exist.

On Wednesday, August 13, 2025, a three-page fax reached the Delta County Prosecutor's Office. It asked for the paper trail a prosecutor's office keeps about its own work: reports, evaluations, reviews, assessments, audits, performance appraisals, case statistics, summaries and compilations prepared during 2023 and 2024, including drafts and records marked confidential. It was, in effect, a request for the office's mirror — the documents in which the office describes what it does, how well it does it, and what it tells the people who fund it.

On September 3, 2025, the office answered. It granted the request in part and denied it in part. It produced ten documents, and among them were four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 — reports that were already sitting in the office's system, ready to print. It withheld “reports provided to or prepared for county officials” outside those it produced, on attorney-client privilege, because the office also serves as civil counsel to the county. And it certified that performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments do not exist.

Then it quoted $5,961.60, with a $2,980.80 deposit and an estimated 270 days to review roughly 2,400 case files.

This page is about the documents that came back, the documents that did not, and the fact that the office produced four case-tracking reports in a request where earlier requests had been told the same kind of data did not exist.

Summary

FOIA 25-195 is the request that asks the Delta County Prosecutor's Office to describe itself. Not a single case, not a single defendant, not a single statistic — the whole apparatus of self-reporting. Performance reviews. Employee evaluations. Operational assessments. Annual, mid-year and year-end reports. Case summaries and statistical breakdowns. Reports prepared for county officials, oversight bodies or the public. Any compiled data, table, chart or narrative summary reflecting the office's work. Drafts, and records marked confidential.

The office's answer is a study in three different dispositions applied to one request. It produced ten documents. It withheld a category of reports on attorney-client privilege. And it certified a category of records nonexistent. Each of those is a lawful tool. The question is whether they were used consistently.

The documents that came back are the most revealing part of the file. Two budget memos to the Board of County Commissioners, dated July 17, 2024 and September 10, 2023. Their drafts. Their attachments: MDOC statistical excerpts, county job descriptions, the PACC 2022 Annual Prosecution Survey. Four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 — misdemeanor charges, felony charges, and a second felony run through the end of 2023. A Warrants Authorized by Agency report. Together they are a portrait of an office that counts its cases, tracks its caseload, and makes detailed budget arguments to the people who fund it.

That portrait matters because of what it says about the office's other answers. In FOIA 25-134, 25-136 and 25-137, the same office certified that case statistics — dismissals, pleas, processing time — did not exist. Here it produced four reports of case statistics, generated by its own case-tracking system, with run dates in 2023. The reports do not answer the earlier requests directly; they cover a different period and different measures. But they establish something the earlier certificates did not: that the office's system generates case reports, that the office knows how to run them, and that it keeps the output.

Six numbers describe what came back. 10 documents produced. 71 pages released. 4 case-tracking reports. 1 category of reports withheld on privilege. 1 category certified nonexistent. And $5,961.60 estimated, with a $2,980.80 deposit and 270 days.

What was requested

The request is dated August 13, 2025 and addressed to the FOIA Coordinator at 310 Ludington Street, Escanaba. It was transmitted by fax and logged by the county's fax platform that morning. It asks for:

“All internal or external reports, evaluations, reviews, assessments, audits, performance appraisals, case statistics, summaries, or compilations of prosecutorial work prepared by, for, or on behalf of the Delta County Prosecutor or Prosecutor's Office during January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024,”

including, “but not limited to”: performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments; annual, mid-year or year-end reports; case summaries or statistical breakdowns by type, disposition or outcome; reports provided to or prepared for county officials, oversight bodies or the public; and any compiled data, tables, charts or narrative summaries reflecting prosecutorial work or office activity. It expressly includes drafts and records marked “confidential.”

Four features of the request matter to how it was answered.

It asked for the office's self-description, not its case files. The request is not for a defendant's record or a victim's statement. It is for the documents in which the office evaluates its own performance and reports on its own activity. That is the category of record most directly relevant to public accountability, and it is the category the office has the most control over.

It named performance reviews and evaluations explicitly. The request does not leave the office guessing whether it wants employee evaluations. It says the words. The office's answer — that they do not exist — is therefore a direct response to a direct question, and it is the kind of answer a certificate of nonexistence is designed to give.

It asked for reports to county officials. This is the part the office withheld on attorney-client privilege. The request asked for “reports provided to or prepared for county officials, oversight bodies, or the public.” The office produced two budget memos to the Board of County Commissioners and withheld the rest of that category as privileged.

It included drafts and confidential records. The office produced draft versions of both budget memos, which suggests it read the request to include drafts and honored that reading for the documents it chose to produce.

The paper trail

The timeline makes one thing clear that the response letter does not emphasize: the documents the office produced are not documents it created for this request. They are documents it already had. The budget memos were written in 2023 and 2024. The case-tracking reports were run on November 30, 2023. The PACC survey and the MDOC excerpts were attachments to the budget memos. The office did not have to build anything to answer the parts of this request it granted; it had to find what was already there and hand it over.

What the office produced

Documented: The office produced ten documents totaling 71 pages. The largest share is the budget material: the FY 2024-25 memo dated July 17, 2024 and the FY 2023-24 memo dated September 10, 2023, each produced in final and draft form, plus 40 pages of attachments. The case-tracking reports account for 9 pages. The rest is cover sheets and supporting tables.

The budget memos are the most substantive documents in the release, and they are worth reading closely, because they are the office describing itself in its own words. The FY 2024-25 memo applies the PAAM staffing formula and concludes that the office should have 4.4 attorneys for its 2023 adult caseload and 2.1 for five months of 2024. It describes the expansion of digital and body-camera evidence — Gladstone first, then the Delta County Sheriff, the Michigan State Police in 2023, and Escanaba Public Safety in early 2024. It requests a second Assistant Prosecutor line item, a salaried Office Manager at $50,000, and reallocation of a $12,000 civil-counsel stipend and $35,000 in ordinance-violation funds. It notes 82 hours of civil work as of June 28, 2024, worth $15,990 at $195 an hour.

The FY 2023-24 memo is a budget argument built on comparison. It requests $10,000 raises for the Assistant Prosecutor and the Chief Assistant, cites the MIDC rate range of $110 to $140 an hour, and compares Delta County's prison-commitment rate to the state's: 28.9 percent in 2021 and 28.6 percent in 2022 for Delta, against 17.7 percent and 18.2 percent statewide. It includes a comparison table of six counties and attaches the PACC 2022 Annual Prosecution Survey for all 83 counties.

None of that is improper. A prosecutor arguing for resources is doing her job, and the memos are detailed and specific. But they establish something the office's other answers do not: this is an office that counts its cases, tracks its caseload, computes its rates, and compares itself to its peers. The capacity to generate the statistics that earlier requests were told did not exist is visible in the documents the office chose to produce.

What was asked, and what came back

The scorecard shows why this request is different from the others in this archive. The office did not stonewall it. It produced documents, it itemized its fee, and it answered on time. On a pure compliance score, 25-195 is the strongest response this site has documented. The questions it raises are not about whether the office answered, but about whether the answers are consistent with each other and with the office's answers to other requests.

Four reports, and three certificates

Here is the part of this file that matters most, and it requires setting 25-195 beside three earlier requests.

In late June 2025, the office received three requests for case statistics covering calendar year 2024. FOIA 25-134 asked how many criminal cases the office had dismissed. FOIA 25-136 asked how many plea agreements it had offered and accepted. FOIA 25-137 asked for the average time from charge authorization to final disposition. All three were answered on July 17, 2025 with a certificate of nonexistence. The office said the records did not exist.

In August 2025, the same office received 25-195. It produced four Adult Case Tracking reports, generated by its case-tracking system, with run dates of 11/30/2023. The misdemeanor report totals 382 cases. The felony report through 11/30/2023 totals 70. The felony report through 12/31/2023 totals 185. The warrants report totals 532 felony and 731 misdemeanor warrants.

Those reports do not answer the 2024 questions. They cover 2023. They report charges and warrants, not dismissals, pleas or processing time. Nothing in them contradicts the earlier certificates directly. But they establish three facts that bear on those certificates:

The system generates case reports. The reports are not hand-built tables. They are system output, with run dates and report names (“Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report,” “Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report,” “Warrants Authorized by Agency”). The office has software that counts cases by type and status.

The office knows how to run them. Someone in the office generated four reports on a single day in November 2023. That is not a capability the office lacks.

The office keeps the output. The reports were still available in 2025, when the request arrived. They had not been discarded.

None of that proves the office could have produced a 2024 dismissal count or a 2024 plea count. The system may track charges and warrants without tracking dispositions. But it shifts the burden of explanation. When an office certifies that a statistic does not exist, and then produces system-generated statistics from the same system for an adjacent period, the public is entitled to ask what the system can and cannot do. The certificates do not answer that question. They say the records do not exist and close the file.

Open question: Does the office's case-tracking system record dispositions, plea agreements and dismissal dates? The reports produced here show it records charges and warrants. If it also records dispositions, then a 2024 dismissal or plea count is a report away, and the earlier certificates are describing a gap in the office's willingness to run the report, not a gap in its records. If it does not record dispositions, then the certificates are accurate and the office's system is simply narrower than the public might assume. Either answer would be useful. Neither is in the record.

Attorney-client privilege, and the budget memos

The office denied one category of records on attorney-client privilege: “reports provided to or prepared for county officials” outside those it produced. Its stated reason is that the office also serves as civil counsel to Delta County and regularly provides reports and memos to county officials pursuant to that attorney-client relationship.

That is a real relationship and a real privilege. A county prosecutor who also acts as civil counsel to the county does give legal advice to the county, and legal advice is privileged. The privilege is not a pretext.

But the same packet contains two budget memos addressed to the Board of County Commissioners. Those are reports provided to county officials. The office produced them. So the category “reports provided to or prepared for county officials” is not uniformly privileged: some of it was produced, and the rest was withheld. The letter does not explain the line.

There is a principled line available. A budget memo requesting resources is advocacy, not legal advice, and it is not privileged. A memo analyzing the county's legal exposure in a pending case is legal advice, and it is. The office could have drawn that line explicitly: “we produced the budget memos because they are budget advocacy, and we withheld the litigation memos because they are legal advice.” It did not. It produced the budget memos and withheld the category, without saying where the line falls or what was on the withheld side of it.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.243(1)(g) exempts information subject to the attorney-client privilege. The privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It does not protect every document an attorney sends to a client. A budget request, a staffing analysis, a caseload projection — those are communications about administration, not about legal advice, and the privilege does not reach them. A public body invoking the privilege must ordinarily show that the withheld material is the kind of communication the privilege protects, and it must do so with enough specificity that the requester can test the claim. A categorical withholding of “reports to county officials” does not meet that standard, especially when some reports to county officials were produced.

The office proposes to review its own FOIA compliance

One line in the FY 2024-25 budget memo deserves its own section, because it is the kind of detail that only surfaces when a request like this one is granted.

Among the services the office offers to provide if funded, the memo lists “final review of any complex FOIA requests.” In other words, the office proposed to the Board of County Commissioners that it be funded to review FOIA requests — including, presumably, requests directed to the county and to the office itself.

That is worth pausing on. The office that has, across this archive, certified statistics nonexistent, quoted six-figure estimates, withheld categories on privilege and listed thirteen exemptions without a map is proposing to be the final reviewer of complex FOIA requests. A FOIA coordinator's job is to apply the Act. A prosecutor's office reviewing its own FOIA compliance is not an independent check; it is the same office, wearing a second hat, deciding whether the first hat complied.

This page does not allege that the proposal was improper. An office with legal expertise may genuinely be better at FOIA review than a county clerk, and consolidating review in one place can produce more consistent answers. But the public should know that the proposal exists, because it bears on how the office sees its own FOIA record. An office that believed its FOIA responses were sound would not necessarily propose to review them; an office that believed they needed legal polish might. Either way, the sentence is a public admission that the office sees FOIA review as a legal service it can provide — which is a different posture from the one the certificates and the estimates suggest.

The system, and the 2023 reports

ProsecutorByKarpel went live in June 2024. The case-tracking reports produced here were run on November 30, 2023, so they predate the system. This page does not fault the office for how it generated those reports in 2023. Whatever system the office used before June 2024 produced them, and the office kept the output.

That is the point. The reports existed before the new system, and they were still available after it. The office's recordkeeping, at least for charges and warrants, was functional across the transition. The question the earlier certificates raise is whether the same was true for dispositions, pleas and processing time — and the reports produced here do not answer it, because they do not cover those measures.

What the reports do show is that the office's pre-2024 system was capable of producing dated, named, system-generated case reports. An office with that capability, asked in 2025 for a 2024 dismissal count, might reasonably have been expected to say either “here is the report” or “our system tracks charges but not dispositions, so we cannot produce that count.” It said neither. It certified nonexistence. The reports produced in 25-195 are the closest thing in this archive to a demonstration that the office could have done better.

The pattern: produce the memo, withhold the analysis

25-195 belongs to a pattern that has become clear across the requests collected here, and it is a subtler pattern than the certificate-of-nonexistence cases. When the office is asked for documents that support its own advocacy — budget memos, caseload projections, comparisons to other counties — it produces them readily. When it is asked for documents that would let the public evaluate that advocacy — performance reviews, internal assessments, the reports behind the budget numbers — it withholds them on privilege or certifies them nonexistent.

Read together, the rows describe a posture that is more sophisticated than outright refusal. The office gives the public the documents that make its case for funding, and withholds or certifies away the documents that would let the public check the case. That is not unlawful, and it may not even be deliberate. But it is a pattern, and it is the pattern this site exists to make visible.

The legal framework, in plain terms

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.233(5) provides that if a public body does not possess a record, it shall certify that fact in writing. The certificate for performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments tracks the statutory language. If the office genuinely possesses no written evaluations of its employees or operations, the certificate is the right form of answer. But a certificate is only as good as the search behind it, and this letter does not describe the search, say who was asked, or explain whether the office has ever evaluated an employee in writing.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.243(1)(g) exempts information subject to the attorney-client privilege. The privilege protects confidential communications for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It does not protect every document an attorney sends to a client, and it does not protect budget advocacy, staffing analyses or caseload projections. A public body invoking the privilege must ordinarily show that the withheld material is the kind of communication the privilege protects. A categorical withholding of “reports to county officials,” when some reports to county officials were produced, does not meet that standard.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.234 governs fees. It permits a public body to charge for the cost of searching, examining, reviewing and separating records, computed at the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of the work, plus fringe benefits, in fifteen-minute increments, and it permits a 50% deposit. The itemization in this packet follows that structure. But the estimate is built on a review of approximately 2,400 case files, and the office produced ten documents with the response. The letter does not reconcile the estimate with what was actually produced, and a requester paying a $2,980.80 deposit is entitled to know what the remaining work is.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.244 requires a public body that withholds exempt material to separate and release the nonexempt portion. The office withheld a category of reports to county officials without releasing any redacted version of them. If those reports contain both privileged legal advice and non-privileged factual material, the segregation duty required the office to separate the two and release the facts. The letter does not address segregation for the withheld category.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.235(5) requires a public body that denies a request to state the specific reasons and identify the specific exemption relied on. The letter identifies attorney-client privilege as the basis for the withheld category, which is more specific than a bare list. But it does not identify which reports were withheld, how many there are, or what they concern, which limits the requester's ability to test the claim.

Authorities and sources cited on this page

Show the statutes, cases, and sources cited on this page

Michigan Freedom of Information Act, Public Act 442 of 1976, MCL 15.231 et seq., in particular MCL 15.233(5) (certificate of nonexistence), MCL 15.234 (fees, estimates and deposits), MCL 15.235 (response deadlines, extensions and the specific-exemption requirement), MCL 15.240 (appeals and civil actions), MCL 15.243(1)(g) (attorney-client privilege), and MCL 15.244 (segregation of exempt material).

Documents relied on: the FOIA request dated August 13, 2025; the response letter dated September 3, 2025; the Detailed Cost Itemization dated 09/03/2025; the Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-195 dated 09/03/2025; and the 71-page responsive-documents release, including the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023, their drafts, and the four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023. All are reproduced, with requester identifiers removed, in the document list on this page.

Comparisons drawn from other records in this archive: FOIA 25-134 (dismissed-case count certified nonexistent), FOIA 25-136 (plea-agreement counts certified nonexistent), FOIA 25-137 (average charge-to-disposition time certified nonexistent), and FOIA 26-20 (aggregate criminal case totals produced).

What would move this forward

The productive next step is a request for the office's case-tracking system documentation: what measures the system records, whether it tracks dispositions, plea agreements and dismissal dates, and what standard reports it can generate. That is a request for existing configuration documents, not a new report, and it would resolve the open question at the center of this file — whether the earlier certificates describe a gap in the office's records or a gap in its willingness to run a report. The four reports produced here prove the system can generate dated, named case reports. The documentation would show what else it can generate.

A second request would ask for the office's written FOIA procedures and any internal guidance on when reports to county officials are treated as privileged and when they are not. That document would explain the line the office drew in this response, and it would let the public see whether the line is a policy or an improvisation.

A third would ask specifically for the reports the office withheld on privilege, described by date and subject rather than by category, so that the withholding can be tested report by report. If the office produces a list of what it withheld, the public can see whether the withheld material is legal advice or budget advocacy, and the privilege claim can be evaluated on its merits.

All three requests are catalogued in our internal working list, with the specific wording and the record that supports each one.

Documents

These are redacted copies prepared for publication. Requester names, home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses have been removed. Unredacted originals are not hosted on the public web server.

Related FOIA requests

• FOIA 26-292 — FOIA 26-292: The office used the requester's own cost-saving clause to withdraw the request, then offered to grant it if he removed the clause (Granted in part, denied in part — no records produced; the office conceded the data exists and refused the aggregate on the ground that the requester's own scope limitation excluded it, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-291 — FOIA 26-291: The office answered a request for a privilege log with nine document titles — and cited a subsection of the FOIA that does not exist (Granted in part — a nine-row title-and-date table supplying two of the eleven requested fields, no count, and a citation to a subsection of MCL 15.243 that does not exist, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-290 — FOIA 26-290: The office refused the victim-services records because it says you already have them — from a packet that contained none (Refused — five paragraphs labelled “granted” but zero pages produced, on the authority of a prior production that contained no responsive documents; the sixth paragraph received no disposition, October 25, 2026)
• FOIA 26-131 — FOIA 26-131: Twenty case files, priced at $82.66 before a single page is copied (Granted in part — release conditioned on a $41.33 deposit; no records produced yet, April 17, 2026)
• FOIA 26-35 — FOIA 26-35: The office counted 52 pleas in 85 minutes — eight days after saying the same kind of aggregate did not exist (Granted — 52 pleas reported from the District and Circuit Court dockets, no fee quoted, no exemption cited, no pages withheld; the count is over-inclusive by the office's own admission, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-34 — FOIA 26-34: The office denied a count of diversion cases by defining “diversion” down to a programme it does not run (Denied — certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), Denial Form box 2 checked, on the ground that the only diversion programme in Delta County is juvenile diversion administered by the Probate Court; no exemption cited, no fee quoted, no waiver determination, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-33 — FOIA 26-33: Asked to count deferred prosecution agreements, the office certified the total nonexistent and priced the underlying data at $9,093.33 (Granted in part and denied in part — the aggregate record denied as requiring creation of a new record, with a certificate of nonexistence and Denial Form box 2 checked; the underlying data granted subject to a $9,093.33 estimate, a $4,546.66 deposit and a 270-day production estimate; public-interest fee waiver left undetermined, February 9, 2026)
• FOIA 26-32 — FOIA 26-32: What the office's own memos say about the migration that broke its records — a 95-page production that answers its own denial (Granted in part, denied in part — five records produced across 95 pages, with only personal contact information redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a); no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-31 — FOIA 26-31: Asked how many crime scenes a prosecutor attended, the office listed eight documents and denied them as duplicative (Denied in full — refused as a duplicative request under Densmore v Department of Corrections, on the ground that the eight listed records were already produced in response to FOIA 25-267; Denial Form box 1 checked with the section 13 subsection left blank; no aggregate figure supplied and no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-30 — FOIA 26-30: Eight documents, one number, and a Densmore refusal built on a premise the record does not fully support (Denied — no aggregate total produced; eight responsive documents identified but not reproduced under a Densmore prior-production rationale; no fee quoted, February 6, 2026)
• FOIA 26-29 — FOIA 26-29: A count of inherited convictions the office could not locate — priced at $1,033.33 for the work of counting (No count produced — office could not locate a record; underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,033.33 with a $516.66 deposit, February 5, 2026)
• FOIA 26-28 — FOIA 26-28: A headcount of cases open when the prosecutor took office — denied, then priced at $1,653.33 on an 800-file baseline (Denied in part, granted in part — no record states the headcount, with a certificate of nonexistence; underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,653.33 with an $826.66 deposit, February 5, 2026)
• FOIA 26-22 — FOIA 26-22: A conviction rate the office says does not exist, priced at $9,548 (Denied — record does not exist; $9,548 quote for the underlying files, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 26-21 — FOIA 26-21: A count of convictions the office says does not exist — then a quiet amendment that changed the number behind the bill (Denied as a compilation — no count produced; fee of $9,548.00 quoted for underlying files; amended response revised the volume figure without explanation, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 26-20 — FOIA 26-20: The aggregate case total, and the records that would let you count it (Denied — record does not exist, January 30, 2026)
• FOIA 25-279 — FOIA 25-279: The office granted the personnel and budget records on paper — then sent three invoices totaling $34,673.79 and none of the records (Granted in part on paper — dozens of records listed as enclosed and none enclosed; three cost itemizations totaling $34,673.79, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-278 — FOIA 25-278: The office says it never tracked plea bargaining — then bills $23,146.66 for a 4,000-file review it says is already covered by another invoice (Granted in part — 62 trials produced from the calendar; plea-offer data certified not to exist; a $23,146.66 estimate the office says is moot if the twin invoice is paid, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-277 — FOIA 25-277: No annual statistical report exists, the underlying data does, and the office prices it at $34,720 (Granted in part — no statistical report exists; the underlying data is granted at a $34,720 estimate built on a volume figure the office has never counted, November 25, 2025)
• FOIA 25-257 — FOIA 25-257: Three certificates of nonexistence, then a $19,840 bill to rebuild the data by hand (Denied — three certificates of nonexistence, with a $19,840 estimate to rebuild the same data by hand, October 31, 2025)
• FOIA 25-254 — FOIA 25-254: Two certificates of nonexistence, two documents produced, and a $74,520 itemization copied from an earlier request (Granted in part, denied in part — two documents produced, two certificates of nonexistence, and a $74,520 estimate identical to FOIA 25-244's, October 31, 2025)
• FOIA 25-244 — FOIA 25-244: Ten service slips, thirteen policy manuals, and a $74,520 quote (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-241 — FOIA 25-241: The special-prosecutor petition the office filed, and the 2024 memo that says it did not need another one (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-240 — FOIA 25-240: Officer use-of-force referrals, and the $1,863 bill for the one part the office would search (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-239 — FOIA 25-239: The Brady/Giglio list and how the office tracks officer credibility (Granted in part, denied in part, October 10, 2025)
• FOIA 25-234 — FOIA 25-234: Four lab reports, two certificates, and 26.4 grams where the press said four ounces (Granted in part, October 1, 2025)
• FOIA 25-202 — FOIA 25-202: No RFP, no bid, no purchase order — and the emails that show how the system was picked (Granted in part, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-201 — FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contracts, invoices, and licensing (Granted in part, denied in part, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-200 — FOIA 25-200: The software the office runs on — seven systems named, one of them retired in June 2024 (Granted in full, August 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-197 — FOIA 25-197: A request for complaints against the office came back as the office's own civil-rights lawsuits (Granted in part, denied in part, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-196 — FOIA 25-196: Audits of the office, 2019 through 2024 — five county financial statements produced, two fiscal years missing (Granted in part — five annual county financial statements produced; fiscal years 2022 and 2024 absent from the release; no exemption cited and no certificate of nonexistence, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-194 — FOIA 25-194: Every email and text the Prosecutor sent in 2024 — a $63,028.80 estimate on a request the requester offered to narrow (Granted in part and denied in part — exemptions cited; $63,028.80 estimated, $31,514.40 deposit required, 270 days, August 13, 2025)
• FOIA 25-215 — FOIA 25-215: Three answers to one request — two certificates of nonexistence, a grant, and a $13,248 estimate (Granted in part, August 9, 2025)
• FOIA 25-180 — FOIA 25-180: Two boxes checked — the trial records both “already provided” and “do not exist” (Denied in full — certificate of nonexistence plus an exemption box checked; no fee, no pages produced, August 2, 2025)
• FOIA 25-139 — FOIA 25-139: Forfeitures in cases that ended without a conviction, certified not to exist — while the same office took an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-137 — FOIA 25-137: The average time from charge to disposition, certified not to exist — after a ten-day extension for “voluminous” records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-136 — FOIA 25-136: The plea-agreement count the office certified does not exist — after taking an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-135 — FOIA 25-135: The office denied the 2024 trial summary as a record that “does not exist” — then produced eight case files on the next page (Granted in part — 8 case files produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-134 — FOIA 25-134: The dismissed-case count the office certified does not exist — after taking an extension for the volume of records (Denied in full — certified that the record does not exist; no fee quoted, no pages produced, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-133 — FOIA 25-133: The office certified the monthly count did not exist — then attached an annual one and offered to sell the underlying data for $2,815.20 (Granted in part — one annual screening table produced; monthly counts withheld; $2,815.20 quoted with a $1,407.60 deposit, June 27, 2025)
• FOIA 25-129 — FOIA 25-129: Arraignment-to-disposition times the office certified do not exist, then priced at $2,931.12 (Granted in part — two items denied as nonexistent; $2,931.12 quote on the third, June 26, 2025)
• FOIA 25-118 — FOIA 25-118: Final case outcomes for January and February 2025 (Fee estimate issued, June 18, 2025)
• FOIA 25-94 — Prosecutor Case Outcome Statistics, 2021–2025 (Granted in Part, May 23, 2025)