FOIA 25-241: The special-prosecutor petition the office filed, and the 2024 memo that says it did not need another one

Watchdog Alerts

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

1. On September 11, 2022 the office petitioned the Attorney General for a special prosecutor, stating in the petition that it “believes we are disqualified” from the case. Four days later the Attorney General wrote “I don’t see a conflict.” Two years after that, facing a second incident involving the same person, the office wrote that the matter “was not sent for review” because “I did not feel an additional determination was necessary.” Who decides whether a conflict exists — the prosecutor or the Attorney General?
2. The office’s own SPA Checklist says to “act upon the conflict as soon as it is identified, preferably pre-charge.” The May 20, 2024 memo says the opposite: the matter was not sent for review. Both documents are in the same produced file. Which one is the office’s operative practice?
3. The 2022 petition gives specific reasons it believed the office was disqualified: the subject’s role in law enforcement, witnesses who are local law enforcement, and close personal ties to people who work in the office. The Attorney General’s September 15, 2022 reply is a single sentence. Did anyone at the Attorney General’s Office weigh the specific reasons the petition gave?
4. The cost itemization does not add up. Line 1 charges 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21, or $17,388.00. Line 3a charges 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Together that is $18,009.00. The form's printed subtotal is $1,863.00 and the deposit it demands is $931.50. The subtotal matches the line items only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00), not the 2,800 the form prints. Which figure is the office actually charging — $1,863 or $18,009?
5. The requester asked, in the request letter itself, that all fees be waived under the public-interest provision of MCL 15.234(1). The county’s own Detailed Cost Itemization has a ‘Waiver: Public Interest’ section with two boxes. Both are blank, and no written waiver determination appears anywhere in the packet.
6. The office certifies that it keeps no written criteria for evaluating ‘insufficient evidence’ or ‘no probable cause.’ In the same response it produces four written conflict-of-interest documents — a PAAM recommendation, a 46-page PACC manual, a checklist, and a process flowchart. Why written standards for one charging question and none for the other?
7. The request expressly asked for “the total number of pages withheld or redacted.” The response describes the categories of separated material but gives no page count for any part. Where is the count the statute’s disclosure provisions were meant to enable?

Timing caveat. ProsecutorByKarpel went live in June 2024. The events this page examines — the September 2022 petition and Attorney General correspondence, and the May 20, 2024 declination memo — predate go-live, and this page does not use the case-management system to judge them. It uses the office’s own written petition, its own memos, and its own conflict-of-interest materials, which are the office’s statements regardless of what system it runs.

On October 10, 2025, a requester faxed the Delta County Prosecutor’s Office a four-part request for the records behind its charging decisions when a law-enforcement officer is the subject. It was one of seven requests the office logged that day under numbers 25-239 through 25-245, and FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo answered all seven in a single letter dated October 30, 2025. For 25-241 the office did something it has rarely done in this archive: it produced the documents. It released its own September 11, 2022 petition asking the Michigan Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor, the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General answered, and two declination memos — one from 2022, one from 2024 — declining charges in two separate Michigan State Police investigations of the same person.

Those documents tell a story the office did not have to assemble for the public. In 2022 the office wrote, in its own petition, that it “believes we are disqualified” from a case because of the subject’s role in law enforcement, the witnesses being local law enforcement, and close personal ties to people who work in the office. Four days later the Attorney General wrote four words: “I don’t see a conflict.” The office kept the case and declined it. Then, in May 2024, a second State Police investigation of the same person reached the same office, and the office declined it too — writing that the matter “was not sent for review” because “I did not feel an additional determination was necessary.”

This page reads the 25-241 portion of the October 30 packet page by page: the request, the four determinations, the Notice of Denial, the seven-page cost itemization, and the 58 pages of responsive documents. It sets the office’s own words beside its own written standards — the PAAM Best Practices Recommendation it produced, the PACC Conflict of Interest Manual, and its own SPA Checklist — and it asks the question the record raises without answering: when the office decided in 2024 that no new conflict review was needed, what standard was it applying, and who besides the office gets to check that decision?

Summary

FOIA 25-241 asked for four categories of record. First, prosecutor declination memoranda, charging review summaries, or case-closing statements for every case from January 1, 2020 to the present in which a law-enforcement officer — local, county, state, or federal — was identified as a subject or suspect and the office declined to issue charges. Second, any internal spreadsheet, log, or list tracking warrant requests that law enforcement submitted and the office denied, returned, or rejected for insufficiency or lack of probable cause. Third, the policies, training materials, or internal guidance describing how charging decisions are made when the subject is an officer, including any written criteria for evaluating “insufficient evidence,” “no probable cause,” or “conflict of interest.” Fourth, communications or memoranda summarizing declination decisions for officers, including correspondence with the Delta County Sheriff’s Office, the Escanaba and Gladstone police departments, the Michigan State Police, and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.

The office answered each part separately, and the answers are more forthcoming than the caption of the request might have predicted. On part one it granted in part and denied in part, producing the petition, the email chain, and the two memos, with names redacted under the personal-privacy, law-enforcement-privacy, and crime-victim-rights exemptions. On part two it denied the logs and lists as nonexistent, denied the underlying records of cases in which an officer is the named suspect as nonexistent, and granted the underlying records of cases in which an officer is not the named suspect — but priced that grant at $1,863.00 with a $931.50 deposit. On part three it granted the conflict-of-interest materials — four documents — and denied the “insufficient evidence” and “no probable cause” criteria, certifying that no such written policy exists. On part four it granted the request and produced the two memos again, with the same redactions.

What makes the file worth reading is not the outcome but the contents. The office produced its own 2022 petition, and that petition is an unusually direct statement that the office considered itself disqualified. It produced the Attorney General’s reply, and that reply is a single sentence declining to see a conflict. And it produced a 2024 memo in which the office, facing a second case involving the same person, decided for itself that no further review was necessary. Read in sequence, the three documents are a record of an office identifying a conflict, being told by the reviewing authority that there was none, and then two years later declining to ask again. Whether that was the right call is a legal question this record does not resolve. That the office made the call, and wrote down why, is documented.

What was requested

The request is dated October 10, 2025, transmitted by fax, and captioned “FOIA Request — Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020–Present).” It was addressed to the Delta County Prosecutor’s Office at 310 Ludington Street, Escanaba. It asked for:

“1. Prosecutor declination memoranda, charging review summaries, or case closing statements for all cases between January 1, 2020 and the present in which a law enforcement officer (local, county, state, or federal) was identified as a subject or suspect in a criminal complaint, investigation, or referral, and the Prosecutor’s Office declined to issue charges.

2. Any internal spreadsheets, logs, or lists maintained by the Prosecutor’s Office that record or track warrant requests submitted by law enforcement agencies which were denied, returned, or rejected for insufficiency or lack of probable cause between 2020 and the present.

3. Policies, training materials, or internal guidance documents describing how charging decisions are made when the subject of a complaint is a law enforcement officer, including any written criteria for evaluating ‘insufficient evidence,’ ‘no probable cause,’ or ‘conflict of interest’ considerations.

4. Communications or memoranda referencing or summarizing declination decisions for law enforcement officers, including correspondence with the Delta County Sheriff’s Office, Escanaba Police Department, Gladstone Police Department, Michigan State Police, or the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.”

Four procedural provisions followed, and each shapes how the response should be read. The request limited itself to “final, closed records” and excluded “ongoing investigations or pre-decisional drafts.” It asked the office to “redact only the specific portions exempt under MCL 15.243, and release all reasonably segregable material as required by MCL 15.244(1).” It asked that any denial identify “the specific statutory exemption subsection,” describe “the nature of the withheld material,” and state “the number of pages withheld or redacted.” It asked for the records electronically, by email, in PDF. And it asked that all fees be waived:

“Please waive all fees pursuant to MCL 15.234(1), as disclosure of these records serves the strong public interest in transparency of prosecutorial oversight of law enforcement.”

It closed by asking for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2), or a written ten-day extension notice if one was needed. The office filed its extension on October 16, 2025, and answered on October 30 — inside the extended window. On procedure, this file is clean.

The paper trail: September 2022

The heart of this production is a two-week sequence in September 2022. It is worth reading in order, because the order is the story. The office petitioned for a special prosecutor, the petition went up the chain at the Attorney General’s Office, the Attorney General declined to see a conflict, and the office kept the case and declined it. Every one of those steps is a document in the file.

September 11, 2022 — the petition, and the reasons it gave

The Petition for Appointment of Special Prosecutor is a short document with a long reach. It is addressed to the Attorney General, it invokes MCL 49.160(1), and it describes an incident in Wells Township in which a report was called in alleging an assault with a glass bottle and grabbing by the neck. When law enforcement contacted the person, according to the petition, that person “did not report any assault” and agreed to leave and spend the night at a friend’s house.

The petition then explains why the office believed it could not handle the case itself. It says the office works daily with the Delta County Sheriff’s Office and Escanaba Public Safety. It says the subject is employed in a role with courthouse duty that requires him to come to the prosecutor’s office several times a week. It says he is married to someone assigned to an office where she works daily with Prosecutor Wickman reviewing cases, discussing strategies, and drafting search warrants. It says the friend’s house where the person spent the night is the residence of another person in the same employ. And it says that individuals within the office have socialized outside work with both of them.

Paragraph 8 is the sentence that matters most: “The Delta County Prosecutor’s Office believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case against [redacted], given his role as law enforcement, the witnesses being local law enforcement, and close ties to several individuals involved with the Prosecutor’s Office.” That is the office’s own characterization of its own position, written by the elected prosecutor, and produced to the public eleven days short of three years later.

September 12–19, 2022 — what the Attorney General did with it

The email chain is short and entirely internal to the review process, but it shows the petition moving through it. On September 12 the office sent the petition and the police report to the Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council and asked to be told if it was granted. The same morning PACC forwarded it to the Attorney General’s SPA inbox. On September 14 the Attorney General’s office recorded that the SPA had been opened in Legal Files and was “now awaiting a decision to keep or place with PACC/PAAM.”

On September 15, Danielle Hagaman-Clark of the Criminal Trials and Appeals Division wrote: “I don’t see a conflict.” On September 19, PACC relayed the result to the prosecutor: “The AG denied your request for special prosecutor on this case, so you are able to keep it for prosecution.” Seven days later the office issued its declination memo in 84-1384-22.

Documented: The Attorney General’s message, as produced, consists of the single sentence “I don’t see a conflict.” It does not recite the reasons the petition gave, does not say which of them it considered, and does not explain why the subject’s role, the law-enforcement witnesses, or the personal ties did not amount to a conflict. That is what the produced record contains. It is possible the full reasoning exists in a document not produced; the packet does not contain one.

Open question: Did the Attorney General’s Office weigh the specific reasons the petition set out in paragraphs 4 through 8, or did it decide on a different basis? The one-sentence reply does not say.

The second case, and the decision not to ask again

Nearly two years later, a second Michigan State Police investigation of the same person reached the same office. The May 20, 2024 memo declining that case is the most consequential document in the production, because it is where the office explains its own reasoning about the conflict it had raised in 2022.

Documented: The May 20, 2024 memo, addressed to Trooper Polley, declines charges in 84-717-24 because “there is no indication of an assault occurring” and the office “would not be able to sustain the necessary burden of proof.” It then adds a paragraph that has nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with the conflict question. The office notes that the matter “was not sent for review to determine if a Special Prosecutor was needed,” recalls that a previous matter was sent in 2022 and the Attorney General found no conflict, states that “[t]here is not a substantial change in the relationship with [redacted] and myself, or the office as a whole,” and concludes: “As such, I did not feel an additional determination was necessary.” It closes by offering to file the paperwork if the trooper wants it done.

That paragraph is the office deciding, on its own, that a question it had once put to the Attorney General did not need to be put again. It gives a reason — no substantial change in the relationships — and it invites the referring officer to override the decision. What it does not do is cite any standard, policy, or authority for the proposition that a prior no-conflict determination carries forward to a new case involving the same person. The office’s own produced materials point the other way, which is the tension the next section examines.

The four parts and how each was answered

Documented: The Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 checks the partial-denial, exempt-from-disclosure, record-does-not-exist, and redaction boxes, records the request as received by fax, and names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii), and (1)(d) as the exemptions relied on. It describes the separated material as “names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, information related to crime victim rights.” The request expressly asked for “the number of pages withheld or redacted”; the response gives no page count for any part.

Documented: The redaction provisions the office cites are real provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. MCL 15.243(1)(a) covers information of a personal nature whose disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy; MCL 15.243(1)(b)(iii) covers law-enforcement investigation records whose disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; MCL 15.243(1)(d) covers records made confidential by statute, here the Crime Victim’s Rights Act at MCL 780.758. The Notice of Denial also lists MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), which is not among the subsections the response letter recites; the letter relies on (1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), and (1)(d). The mismatch between the form and the letter is minor, but it is a mismatch, and a requester reading only the form would be told a different basis than the letter gives.

The agency’s position: The office treated the nonexistence certificates as complete answers to the log request and to the “insufficient evidence” and “no probable cause” criteria. It did not offer a narrowed alternative for those parts, or identify a different record that might contain the same information.

The tension between the 2024 memo and the office’s own standards

This is the section where the record does the most work, because the office produced not only its own petition and memos but also the written standards it says govern conflict decisions. Read together, those standards describe a process that looks different from what the 2024 memo did.

Documented — the PAAM Best Practices Recommendation. The office produced the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan’s Best Practices Recommendation on Conflict of Interest / Special Prosecutor, approved February 10, 2017. It states that “[a]n elected prosecutor who has a conflict will require recusal of the entire prosecutor’s office,” and that “[a]s soon as a conflict is discovered that requires the disqualification of a prosecutor’s office, the prosecuting attorney should seek a special prosecutor by submitting a petition and supporting documents (e.g. police report) to the Department of Attorney General, pursuant to MCL 49.160.” It adds that the petition “should articulate the basis for the disqualification and rely on more than a mere claim that someone might question whether the prosecutor should be disqualified.”

Documented — the SPA Checklist. The office produced its own Special Prosecutor Assignment Checklist. It asks: “Is it an actual conflict or is just uncomfortable?” It directs: “If conflict with PA or CAPA – send for SPA.” It instructs: “Do: act upon the conflict as soon as it is identified, preferably pre-charge.” And it describes the submission: “To submit a SPA: email a petition describing the conflict, the police report, and charging documents (if case is charged) to the AG and the AED of PACC.”

Documented — the SPA Process flowchart. The office produced a flowchart that quotes People v Doyle, 159 Mich App 632, 643: “While a prosecutor must prosecute vigorously, he must also prosecute impartially.” It walks through the conflict questions — whether the prosecutor previously represented the suspect in private practice, whether there is a financial or emotional interest, whether there is a personal relationship with the accused or a significant witness — and it maps who must be sent for special prosecution: a conflict with the PA or Chief APA means “send for special prosecution,” while a conflict with an APA or staff member may sometimes be isolated.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: None of these documents says that a prior no-conflict determination is binding on a later case, or that an office may skip a new review because the relationships have not substantially changed. The checklist says to act on a conflict “as soon as it is identified, preferably pre-charge,” and the PAAM recommendation says to seek a special prosecutor “[a]s soon as a conflict is discovered.” The 2024 memo does the opposite: it identifies the same relationships the 2022 petition described, concludes they have not substantially changed, and decides that no new determination is necessary. That may be a defensible judgment — the office gives a reason, and it offers to submit the paperwork if the trooper asks — but it is a judgment the office’s own written standards do not obviously authorize, and the record does not show any authority that does.

Open question: When the office decided in May 2024 that no new conflict determination was necessary, what standard was it applying? If the answer is that a prior Attorney General determination carries forward until the relationships materially change, where is that rule written, and who reviews the office’s assessment that they have not changed?

The $1,863 quote that does not add up

Parts one, three, and four cost nothing. The office produced the petition, the email chain, the two memos, and the four conflict-of-interest documents without charging a fee. Only part two — the underlying records of cases in which an officer is not the named suspect — was priced. The price printed on the form is $1,863.00, the same figure that appears on FOIA 25-240 from the same October 30 letter. The line items on that form, however, do not produce it.

Documented: The itemization is a seven-page county form. Line 1, labor cost to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21, or $17,388.00, against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time. Line 3a, labor cost to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4, and 5 are zero. Those figures sum to $18,009.00. The subtotal line on page 5 reads $1,863.00, and page 6 requires a 50 percent deposit of $931.50 with completion estimated at 90 days from receipt. Each of those cells was read independently at high resolution and cross-checked against the document’s text layer; the 42,000 minutes and the 2,800 increments agree with each other, so the line-1 figure is not a scanning artifact.

Documented: The form also prints an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe and a charge of $6.21 per quarter hour. Those two figures do not agree either: $6.21 times four is $24.84, not $48.82. The $48.82 appears to be the pre-fringe rate and the $6.21 the billed quarter-hour rate, but the form does not say so.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.234(1) permits a fee for the actual 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. A public body may also require a good-faith deposit of up to half the estimated fee. What the Act does not permit is a charge that cannot be reconciled with the itemization that supports it. Whether the office is actually demanding $1,863 or $18,009 is a question the form leaves open on its face — and a requester deciding whether to pay a deposit, or whether to appeal an excess fee under MCL 15.240a, needs that number to be right.

Documented: The itemization contains a section headed “Waiver: Public Interest.” It recites the statutory standard and offers two boxes: “All fees are waived” and “All fees are reduced by” a stated percentage. Both boxes are blank. The subtotal before waiver carries forward unchanged to the deposit line. No separate written determination of the waiver request appears anywhere in the packet.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: MCL 15.234(1) makes a public-interest waiver discretionary: a public body “may” furnish records without charge if it determines the request primarily benefits the general public. The statute does not, on its face, require a written explanation every time a waiver is declined. But a requester who invokes the provision and receives a bill has no way to know from this packet whether the waiver was considered and rejected or simply not addressed. The county’s own form provides the mechanism for recording that decision — the two boxes — and the mechanism was left unused. That is a documentation gap the record supports, not an assertion that the fee was unlawful.

Open question: Which figure is the office actually charging — $1,863.00 or $18,009.00 — and how was the subtotal on page 5 derived from the line items on pages 2 and 3? And was the public-interest waiver under MCL 15.234(1) evaluated for this request at all, and if it was declined, on what reasoning? The packet does not say.

The pattern this file fits

Documented: 25-241 is the third of the seven October 10 requests to be added to this archive, after 25-239, 25-240, and 25-244. All four share a request date, a fax transmission, a single combined response letter, a dated extension, and a timely answer. They differ in what the office produced. On 25-239 the office produced 137 pages at no charge. On 25-244 it produced thirteen free policy manuals and quoted $74,520 for the underlying data. On 25-240 it produced nothing and quoted $1,863. On 25-241 it produced nine documents — the petition, the email chain, two memos, and four conflict-of-interest materials — at no charge, and quoted a printed $1,863.00 — though its own line items total $18,009.00 — for the one remaining search.

Documented: The fee posture on 25-241 is the most favorable in the October 10 group. The office did not charge for the documents that answer the central question, and it produced its own petition and the Attorney General’s reply without redacting anything but names. That is a real grant, and the page should say so plainly. What it did not do is answer the waiver request for the one part it priced, or give a page count for the material it separated.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: The pattern across the priced files is consistent: the office attaches a detailed itemization to a request it says it can partly answer, requires a deposit before the search begins, and leaves the public-interest waiver boxes blank. On 25-240 and 25-244 the line items reconcile to the subtotal. On 25-241 they do not: the lines total $18,009.00 and the form prints $1,863.00. Nothing in the Act forbids charging a properly itemized fee or requiring a deposit. What the Act leaves to the body’s judgment is the waiver, and that is the judgment the record leaves undocumented — on 25-240, on 25-244, and again here.

Authorities and sources

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

• MCL 15.231 et seq. — Michigan Freedom of Information Act.
• MCL 15.233 — procedure for requesting public records; written request and response obligations.
• MCL 15.234 — fees, labor charges, fringe benefits, good-faith deposits, and the public-interest waiver and reduction provision at subsection (1).
• MCL 15.235 — response timing: five business days, and the single ten-business-day extension under subsection (2)(d).
• MCL 15.240 and 15.240a — appeal of a denial, and appeal of an excess fee.
• MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) — the exemptions cited in the response letter.
• MCL 15.244(1) — segregation of exempt from nonexempt material and release of the remainder.
• MCL 780.758 — Crime Victim’s Rights Act, the statute underlying the (1)(d) citation.
• MCL 49.160(1) — the statute under which the office petitioned the Attorney General for a special prosecutor.
• People v Doyle, 159 Mich App 632, 643 — quoted in the office’s SPA Process flowchart: “While a prosecutor must prosecute vigorously, he must also prosecute impartially.”
• PAAM Best Practices Recommendation, Conflict of Interest / Special Prosecutor — approved February 10, 2017, produced in response to 25-241.
• PACC Conflict of Interest Manual — November 2015, produced in response to 25-241.
• Special Prosecutor Assignment (SPA) Checklist and SPA Process flowchart — produced in response to 25-241.
• Petition for Appointment of Special Prosecutor — dated September 11, 2022, produced in response to 25-241.
• Email exchange regarding the Special Prosecutor Denial — September 12–19, 2022, produced in response to 25-241.
• Memo re MSP Incident No. 84-1384-22 — dated September 26, 2022, produced in response to 25-241.
• Memo re MSP Incident Number 84-717-24 — dated May 20, 2024, produced in response to 25-241.
• Delta County FOIA Detailed Cost Itemization Form — prepared for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025, seven pages.
• Delta County Notice of Denial — Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025.

Michigan law — the statutory framework applied here

Legal interpretation: The central legal question on this page is narrow. It is not whether the office may decline charges in a case involving a law-enforcement officer; that is its charging discretion, and the record does not show that either declination was improper. It is whether the office’s decision in May 2024 to forgo a new conflict determination, on the reasoning that the relationships had not substantially changed, is consistent with the written standards the office itself produced — standards that say to act on a conflict “as soon as it is identified, preferably pre-charge” and to seek a special prosecutor “[a]s soon as a conflict is discovered.” The record shows the office identified the conflict in 2022, was told by the Attorney General that there was none, and two years later decided on its own that no further review was needed. Whether that was correct is a question the record raises and does not answer.

What would change this picture

Four records, if produced, would resolve most of the open questions on this page. First, any written standard or authority the office relied on in May 2024 when it decided that a prior no-conflict determination carried forward to a new case involving the same person. Second, the full internal record of the Attorney General’s September 2022 review, if one exists beyond the one-sentence reply — anything showing which of the petition’s reasons were weighed. Third, a page count and item-level description of the material redacted from the petition and the two memos. Fourth, any written determination of the MCL 15.234(1) waiver request for the part-two search, whether granting or denying it.

None of these requires a new legal theory. They are specific documents with specific descriptions, and a narrowed follow-up request naming them directly would test the office’s answers without arguing about characterization.

Open questions

• When the office decided in May 2024 that no new conflict determination was necessary, what standard or authority was it applying? Its own SPA Checklist says to act on a conflict “as soon as it is identified, preferably pre-charge.”
• Did the Attorney General’s Office weigh the specific reasons the 2022 petition gave — the subject’s role, the law-enforcement witnesses, the personal ties — or did it decide on a different basis? The produced reply is one sentence.
• Was the public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1) evaluated for the part-two search, and if it was declined, on what reasoning? The itemization’s waiver boxes are blank.
• Why does the office certify that it keeps no written criteria for “insufficient evidence” or “no probable cause,” while producing four written conflict-of-interest documents in the same response?
• What is the total number of pages withheld or redacted, which the request expressly asked for and the response does not state?
• Was the $931.50 deposit paid, and if so, when did the 90-day production clock start?
• The Notice of Denial lists MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), but the response letter relies on (1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), and (1)(d). Which subsections does the office actually claim?

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 25-240 — 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 25-195 — 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 (Granted in part and denied in part — ten documents produced; county reports withheld on attorney-client privilege; performance reviews certified nonexistent; $5,961.60 estimated, $2,980.80 deposit, 270 days, 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)