FOIA 26-290: The office refused the victim-services records because it says you already have them — from a packet that contained none

Watchdog Alerts

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

1. The office wrote “granted” five times and produced zero pages. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are each disposed of with the same sentence: the request is granted, but the documents “will not be provided.”
2. The ground for refusal is a prior production, FOIA 25-279. That packet is published on this site and contains no responsive documents — a Notice of Denial, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three cost itemizations totalling $34,673.79.
3. Densmore assumes the records were in fact provided. The office relies on a production that demanded $17,336.89 in deposits before it would produce anything, and treats the unpaid invoice as though it were a completed delivery.
4. Paragraph 6 received no answer at all. No grant, no denial, no exemption, no certificate of nonexistence. A paragraph with no disposition has not been answered under MCL 15.235.
5. The office volunteered that “no staff titles or position have changed” and that “the individuals involved in that role has not changed” — a staffing conclusion stated in prose while the documentation behind it is withheld.
6. The office has already published the number it now refuses to confirm: its 25-279 letter states the office employs 8 people, one of whom is a victim advocate.
7. The request asked for calendar years 2024 and 2025. The office describes the prior production as covering “2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years” — a different basis, and the letter never reconciles the two.
8. No exemption under MCL 15.243 was cited, no Notice of Denial was issued, no fee was quoted, and the MCL 15.234 fee waiver was neither granted nor denied.

Timing caveat. Nothing on this page faults the office for adopting ProsecutorByKarpel in June 2024 or for the migration being difficult. The point is narrower: the office attributes the absence of records to a system change, and the request covers a period after that change. The site does not assert an implementation date for the case-management system.

On Sunday, October 25, 2026, a requester faxed the Delta County Prosecutor's Office a six-paragraph request for the office's victim-services staffing and grant funding for 2024 and 2025. The office received it on Monday, October 26, and answered on Thursday, October 29 — business day three of five. The letter says “granted” five separate times. It produces nothing. Each of the first five paragraphs is disposed of with the same sentence: the records “have been previously provided to you in response to a FOIA request,” good cause has not been shown, so “the request is granted, but the documents will not be provided pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994).” The sixth paragraph is not mentioned at all.

The prior production the office relies on is FOIA 25-279, “sent on or about December 18, 2025.” That file is already in this archive. Its 74-page packet contains no responsive documents. What it contains is a Notice of Denial, a blank appeal form, a policy notice, and three cost itemizations totalling $34,673.79, with $17,336.89 in deposits demanded before any of the granted records would be produced. The office is now refusing to produce victim-services records on the ground that it already produced them in a production that produced nothing.

Summary

This is a short file with a long tail. The request is six numbered paragraphs. The response is three pages. The disposition is the same sentence, repeated five times, with one paragraph left unanswered. No fee is quoted, no exemption is cited, no Notice of Denial is issued, and no waiver is discussed. By the letter of the office's own words, five-sixths of the request was granted.

Three things make the file worth reading. The first is the arithmetic of the prior production: the office's ground for refusal is that the records were already given, and the record of that giving shows a packet with no records in it. The second is that the office's own letter supplies, in prose, part of what was asked for — it states that no staff titles or positions have changed since December 2025 and that the individuals in the role have not changed, which is a staffing answer, just not a documented one. The third is the paragraph the office did not answer. Paragraph 6 asked for an organizational chart, a position description, or a staffing-roster entry. The letter addresses paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 by number and then stops.

The six paragraphs, and what happened to each

Paragraph	What was asked for	What the office said	Documents produced
1	Victim-services headcount and FTE for 2024 and 2025, by position title and funding source	“granted” — withheld under Densmore as previously provided in 25-279	None
2	Grant dollar amounts by year, program, awarding agency and award number	“granted” — withheld under Densmore as previously provided in 25-279	None
3	Award letters, grant agreements, subawards and amendments	“granted” — withheld under Densmore as previously provided in 25-279	None
4	Budget line, ledger or expenditure summary by year and category	“granted” — withheld under Densmore as previously provided in 25-279	None
5	Reports, reimbursement claims, invoices or progress reports to granting agencies	“granted” — withheld under Densmore as previously provided in 25-279	None
6	Organizational chart, position description or staffing-roster entry	Not addressed	None

What was requested

The request is dated October 25, 2026, which was a Sunday, and was transmitted by fax. The office's letter acknowledges “your Freedom of Information Act request dated October 25, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on October 26, 2026.” That is the office's own record of receipt, and it is the first thing in this file that is worth noting, because it is accurate.

The request opens by narrowing itself:

“I am requesting records concerning two subjects only: the office's victim-services staffing, and any state or federal victim-services grant funding the office received, for calendar years 2024 and 2025.”

It then explains why the narrowing matters, in language that anticipates the obvious objection:

“This request seeks aggregate staffing numbers and aggregate grant dollar amounts. It does not seek the identity of any victim, client, complainant, witness, or defendant, and it does not seek any individual employee's salary or personnel file. The records described below can be produced without disclosing a single victim identifying fact, and I ask that they be evaluated on that basis.”

That paragraph is the reason this file belongs in the archive. Victim-services records are the one category in which a public body has a genuine and serious privacy interest, and the request removes it. What is left is a headcount, a set of dollar figures, and the paper that moves the money. The request asks for those in six ways: the staffing count with titles and funding sources; the grant amounts by year, program, agency and award number; the award letters and agreements themselves; a budget or ledger summary; the reports and reimbursement claims sent to the granting agencies; and the organizational chart or position description that puts the positions on paper.

It also asks for a fee waiver or reduction under MCL 15.234, on the ground that the subject is a matter of public interest and the records are aggregate. That request is not addressed in the response at all.

What the office answered

The letter is dated October 29, 2026, on office letterhead, signed by Emily DeSalvo as FOIA Coordinator. It is three pages. Page one restates the request. Page two contains the five dispositions. Page three is the signature block.

The operative sentence, which appears five times with only the paragraph number and the description of the records changed, reads:

“As these records have been previously provided to you in response to a FOIA request, and good cause has not been shown for these records to be provided to you anew, the request is granted, but the documents will not be provided pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994).”

Before that sentence, each paragraph carries a short factual assertion about what the prior production contained. For paragraph 1 the office writes that “records documenting the staffing related to the victim service unit was provided in response of FOIA Request 25-279, sent on or about December 18, 2025. Since that time no staff titles or position have changed. In addition, the individuals involved in that role has not changed. These documents include CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years.” For paragraph 2 and 3 it says the records “include the grant application and allocation letters.” For paragraph 5 it says they “include quarterly reports.”

Paragraph 6 — the organizational chart, position description or staffing-roster entry — is never mentioned. The letter moves from the paragraph 5 disposition directly to the standard appeal paragraph.

The citation form here is correct, and that is worth saying because it has not always been. Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich. App. 363 (1994), is a real Michigan Court of Appeals decision and the citation is properly formed, including the “App.” that was dropped in the 26-30 letter. Whatever else is wrong with this response, the case cite is not.

What Densmore actually does, and what it assumes

Legal interpretation. Densmore is the case the office uses whenever it wants to decline a repeat request. Its holding, as the office describes it, is that the Freedom of Information Act does not require a public body to provide copies of records it has already furnished to the same requester, absent a showing of good cause for a second copy. The purpose is administrative: the act is not a free photocopy service, and a requester who already has a document does not need the public body to produce it again.

The holding rests on a premise that is easy to state and easy to test. It assumes the records were in fact provided. If the prior production contained the records, the office may say so and decline to duplicate them. If the prior production did not contain them, there is nothing to duplicate, and the premise of the refusal disappears. A court applying Densmore would ask what the earlier response actually produced, not what the earlier letter said it was granting.

That distinction is the whole of this file. The office's letter says the victim-services records “were provided in response of FOIA Request 25-279.” The record of 25-279 says otherwise.

What 25-279 actually contained

FOIA 25-279 is in this archive, and its page is titled “The office granted the personnel and budget records on paper — then sent three invoices totaling $34,673.79 and none of the records.” The packet is 74 pages. Its watchdog summary records what is in it: a letter that says GRANTED, or GRANTED IN PART, on nearly every line and says “please find the following documents” dozens of times; a Notice of Denial; a blank appeal form; a policy notice; and three cost itemizations totalling $34,673.79, with $17,336.89 in deposits demanded before any of the granted records would be produced.

No responsive documents were released. That is not this site's inference from a summary; it is what the packet contains when you open it. The office's own 25-279 letter describes the records it is granting and then attaches invoices instead.

What 26-290 says 25-279 contained, and what 25-279 contains

26-290's description of the prior production	What the 25-279 packet actually contains
“Records documenting the staffing related to the victim service unit”	No staffing records. A letter describing them, and a cost itemization.
“CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years”	No grant applications and no allocation documents. No CVRP paperwork of any kind.
“The grant application and allocation letters”	No grant letters. A Notice of Denial and a blank appeal form.
“Quarterly reports”	No quarterly reports. Three invoices totalling $34,673.79.
“Records related to the funding and budgets of the victim service unit”	No budget records. A policy notice and a deposit demand of $17,336.89.

There is a second problem with the prior-production ground, and it is arithmetic rather than legal. The request asks for calendar years 2024 and 2025. The office's description of what 25-279 contained refers to “2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years.” A fiscal year is not a calendar year. If the prior production was organized on a fiscal-year basis, it does not answer a calendar-year request even on its own terms, and the office's letter does not say how the two line up.

There is a third problem, and it is the one that reads most oddly. The office states as fact that “since that time no staff titles or position have changed” and “the individuals involved in that role has not changed.” Those sentences are a staffing answer. They tell the public that the victim-services complement in October 2026 is the same as it was in December 2025. But they are not a record, they are not sworn, and they are not the headcount and FTE figures paragraph 1 asked for. The office volunteered the conclusion while withholding the documentation behind it.

The count the office has already published

One more piece of the record bears directly on whether the victim-services staffing numbers are sensitive at all. The 25-279 letter — the same prior production — states the office's own staffing scale: 8 employees, of whom 3 are attorneys, 4 are clerks or support staff, and 1 is a victim advocate. That sentence is in a public letter the office sent to this requester in December 2025.

So the office has already told the public that it employs one victim advocate. A request that asks for the victim-services headcount and FTE is asking, at least in part, for a number the office has published. The Densmore refusal does not distinguish between the part of paragraph 1 that is already public and the part that is not, and it does not explain why a headcount the office has stated in prose cannot be stated again in a table.

The paragraph that was not answered

Paragraph 6 asked for “any organizational chart, position description, or staffing roster entry for a victim-services position in effect at any time during 2024 or 2025.” The letter does not mention it. There is no grant, no denial, no exemption, no certificate of nonexistence, and no Densmore sentence.

Legal interpretation. Under MCL 15.235 a public body must respond to a request within five business days, and the response must either grant the request, deny it in whole or in part with a written notice citing the exemption relied on, or certify that the record does not exist under MCL 15.233(1). Silence is not one of the options. A paragraph that receives no disposition has not been answered, and a requester reading this letter cannot tell whether paragraph 6 was granted, denied, overlooked, or folded into the Densmore sentence that covers paragraphs 1 through 5.

This is the kind of defect that is easy to make and hard to excuse. The letter is organized paragraph by paragraph, with a disposition for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The omission is not a formatting artifact; it is a missing disposition in a document whose entire structure is dispositions.

Five grants that produce nothing

The word “granted” appears five times in this letter. Under Michigan's act, a grant means the records will be produced. The office's sentence is a hybrid that does not exist in the statute: the request is “granted, but the documents will not be provided.”

That construction has a practical consequence for anyone reading the site's statistics. A record labelled “granted” that produces no documents is not a grant in any sense a requester would recognize. It is a denial with a different word in front of it. The office's own letter supplies the reason — Densmore — but Densmore is a judicial gloss on the act, not one of the exemptions listed in MCL 15.243. So the response neither grants nor denies in the statutory sense: it invokes a case, produces nothing, and calls the result a grant.

For that reason this record is catalogued on this site as a denial, not a partial grant. The label reflects what the requester received — zero pages — rather than the word the office chose.

The timeline

Eleven days, and the office used three of its five business days

Date	Day	Event	Business day
October 25, 2026	Sunday	Request dated and faxed	—
October 26, 2026	Monday	Received by the office, per its own letter	0
October 27, 2026	Tuesday	—	1
October 28, 2026	Wednesday	—	2
October 29, 2026	Thursday	Response letter dated and signed	3
November 2, 2026	Monday	Fifth business day — deadline under MCL 15.235	5

The office answered on business day three, two days early. That is worth recording plainly, because it is the fastest turnaround in this archive and it cuts against the simplest story about this office. Whatever else is true, the letter was not late, and no extension was taken.

It is also worth recording what the speed shows. The same office that has taken extensions on other files, and that has in other files let the five-day clock run to the last hour, produced a three-page, paragraph-by-paragraph refusal in three business days. The capacity to respond quickly exists. What varies is not the office's ability to move but what it chooses to do when it moves.

What the record shows

Six things are documented and do not depend on interpretation.

One. The office received the request on October 26, 2026 and answered on October 29, 2026, business day three of five. It was timely.

Two. The office disposed of paragraphs 1 through 5 with a single repeated sentence invoking Densmore and the prior production in 25-279.

Three. The 25-279 packet, which is published in this archive, contains no responsive documents — it contains a Notice of Denial, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three cost itemizations totalling $34,673.79.

Four. Paragraph 6 received no disposition of any kind.

Five. No fee was quoted, no deposit was demanded, no exemption under MCL 15.243 was cited, and the MCL 15.234 fee waiver the request asked for was neither granted nor denied.

Six. The office asserted in prose that no staff titles, positions or personnel in the victim-services role have changed since December 2025, and separately stated in 25-279 that the office employs 8 people, one of whom is a victim advocate.

Opinion: a receipt for records that were never delivered

There is a version of this letter that would be entirely defensible, and it is worth describing, because the office did not write it. It would say: these records were produced to you on December 18, 2025, in response to 25-279; here is the page range; here is the invoice you were sent and did not pay; under Densmore we decline to duplicate a production you already have. That letter would be checkable. A reader could turn to 25-279, find the pages, and see whether the claim holds.

What the office wrote instead is a receipt for a delivery that never happened. It names the prior request, dates it, describes its contents in specific terms — CVRP grant applications, allocation letters, quarterly reports, budget records — and then declines to produce anything on the ground that all of it has already been handed over. Every one of those descriptions is false as applied to the 25-279 packet. The packet has no grant applications in it. It has no allocation letters, no quarterly reports, and no budget records. It has invoices.

The gap between the two is not a matter of characterization. It is the difference between a production and a bill for one. And the bill is the part that matters, because 25-279 did not simply fail to produce the records — it demanded $17,336.89 in deposits before it would. A requester who declined to pay a five-figure deposit did not receive the records. He also, on the office's current theory, forfeited his right to ever ask for them again, because the office now treats the unpaid invoice as though it were a completed delivery.

That is the move this file documents, and it is a genuinely new one in this archive. Previous files show the office quoting a price and then producing nothing. This file shows the office treating the quotation as though the production had occurred. The invoice becomes the record. The demand becomes the delivery. And the requester is told that he already has what he was never given.

Two smaller things sit alongside it. The first is paragraph 6, which simply vanishes. A letter organized as five numbered dispositions and one silence is a letter that was assembled quickly from a template, and the template ran out. The second is the volunteered assertion that nothing has changed since December 2025. That sentence is doing a lot of work. It is the office telling the public that the answer to paragraph 1 is a stable number, while declining to give the number, the titles, the FTE figures or the funding source. If the answer is as simple as the office says, producing it would take less time than writing the sentence that withholds it.

None of this requires a finding of bad faith. It requires only that the office be held to what it wrote. It wrote that the records were previously provided. The prior production is published. It contains no records. Either the office is mistaken about its own file, or it is using a production that failed as though it had succeeded. Both are answerable, and both are answered the same way: by producing the records, or by saying in writing that they will not be produced and citing the exemption that applies.

What this record does not show

It does not show that the victim-services records are being concealed for an improper reason. The most likely explanation is administrative: a coordinator working from a prior-request log saw 25-279 listed against the same subject matter and applied the Densmore template without opening the packet. That is a plausible account, and it is not a flattering one, but it is not corruption.

It does not show that the records do not exist. The office's letter describes them in detail, which is an assertion that they do.

It does not show that the office was required to waive the fee. No fee was quoted, so the waiver question is moot in practice, though the request asked for a written determination and did not get one.

And it does not show that paragraph 6 was deliberately ignored. Omission and oversight look the same in a three-page letter. What the record shows is that the paragraph received no answer, which is a defect regardless of intent.

What to ask next

The first follow-up is the obvious one and it is cheap. Ask the office to identify, by page number, where in the 25-279 production each of the five categories of victim-services records appears. If the records are in the packet, the page numbers will settle it. If they are not, the question answers itself.

The second is a re-ask with the Densmore premise removed. Ask for the same six categories and state expressly that the requester does not have the records, that the 25-279 production contained no responsive documents, and that good cause for a new production is therefore shown on the face of the prior response. A refusal of that request would have to rest on something other than duplication.

The third is paragraph 6 alone, asked again, with a request that the office either produce the organizational chart or position description or certify in writing that none exists. A silent paragraph is not a disposition, and asking for it in isolation removes the possibility of its being lost in a longer letter.

The fourth is the CVRP paper. The office says the prior production included “CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years.” Ask for the grant number and the awarding agency for each of those three fiscal years, as a single line each. That is four facts, it requires no document review, and it tests whether the office can describe a grant it says it has already produced.

Authorities and sources cited on this page

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

• Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq.
• MCL 15.233(1) — certification that a public record does not exist.
• MCL 15.234 — fee waiver and reduction; invoked by the request, not addressed by the response.
• MCL 15.235 — five-business-day response period and the requirement of a written grant or denial.
• MCL 15.240 — appeal to the chairperson of the county board of commissioners, or judicial review in circuit court; the response letter states that a prevailing requester may recover attorney fees, costs and disbursements, actual or compensatory damages, and punitive damages of $1,000.00.
• Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich. App. 363 (1994) — cited by the office as authority for declining to reproduce records previously provided.

Documents relied on: the October 29, 2026 response letter (three pages), published below with the requester's identifying information redacted. The prior production, FOIA 25-279, is published separately in this archive and is the source for the contents of that packet, the three invoices totalling $34,673.79, the deposit demand of $17,336.89, and the staffing figure of 8 employees including 1 victim advocate.

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 26-131 — 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 25-195 — 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)