Delta County, Michigan · Public Records Accountability
Every Freedom of Information Act request, response, denial, fee, and appeal — documented, redacted where necessary, and published in the public interest. No spin. Just the record.
Based on 50 FOIA requests indexed and 7 case watches, 37 indicators and evidence through November 2, 2026.
50 original requests tracked — 43 FOIA files and 7 case watches · 27 appeal events · updated November 2, 2026
43 FOIA files · newest first, by the date each was submitted
Asked for twelve monthly felony-authorization counts, the office conceded the data exists, refused the arithmetic, and blamed the requester's own cost-saving clause.
Asked for an eleven-field privilege log, the office produced nine document titles and a citation to MCL 15.243(9) — a subsection that does not exist.
Five paragraphs labelled “granted,” zero pages produced, and the prior production the office relies on contains no responsive documents at all — only $34,673.79 in invoices.
A narrowed request for 2025 felony sex-offense charging records, granted in part and priced at $82.66 with a $41.33 deposit — while the office's own case-volume figures and its Karpel database go unaddressed.
Asked to count January's pleas, the office read two courts' dockets and answered 52 in 85 minutes, free — eight days after certifying that the same kind of aggregate did not exist and quoting $1,653.33 to build one.
Asked to count diversion cases, the office did not search and shrug. It narrowed “diversion” to a Probate Court programme it does not run, certified the record did not exist, and put three different arrival dates on one fax.
Asked to count deferred prosecution agreements, the office certified that no such record exists — then conceded the underlying data does, and priced it at $9,093.33 with a $4,546.66 deposit and a 270-day estimate.
Asked for records on how the migration affects FOIA responses, the office partly denied the request — then produced three memos to the Board that say the data ‘did not transition completely, or accurately,’ the old system is gone, and a commissioner’s cheaper fix was declined because ‘we don’t have time.’
Asked for a count of crime scenes a prosecutor attended, the office listed eight records, refused to reproduce them as duplicative, and never supplied the number. Every dated item on the list falls in 2024.
The office named eight responsive documents, produced none, and certified the number does not exist — while saying the number can be gleaned from the documents it will not hand over.
One number was requested. The office could not locate it, defined the key word itself, and then quoted $1,033.33 to let the requester count — on an invoice whose own arithmetic is $4.13 off.
How many cases were open the day the prosecutor took office? The office certified no record says. Then it priced the counting at $1,653.33 — on an 800-file baseline that its own companion letter, sent the same day, set at 500.
The office says no such record exists, then quotes $9,548 and a $4,774 deposit to search roughly 3,300 case files.
A count of convictions the office says does not exist, priced at $9,548. Then, seven days later, an amendment that quietly changed the volume figure behind the bill — and said nothing about why.
Denied twice: no document holds the total, and the reports the office points to leave eleven months of 2024 uncovered.
Forty-eight pages of GRANTED, and not one record enclosed. Instead: three cost itemizations totaling $34,673.79, an 8-employee office, a 6,000-file estimate, and an admission that two years of audits do not exist.
The office says it never kept plea-offer data, then bills $23,146.66 for a 4,000-file review its own footnote calls moot if the twin invoice is paid. The one thing it produced — 62 trials — it got from a calendar, not the files.
The office says no statistical report exists — then offers to compile the statistics for $34,720, using a case count it has never counted. Its own five-category backlog definition suggests the numbers are a query away.
Five years of plea and disposition data, denied three times as nonexistent — then priced at $19,840 to reconstruct by hand from 6,000 files the office's own database already indexes.
The office says it keeps no Brady/Giglio disclosure log — while its own 2024 policy orders six police agencies to report eight kinds of officer-credibility information to it. Then it quotes the same $74,520 it quoted seven weeks earlier.
Every Brady/Giglio statistic certified nonexistent. The policy manuals handed over free. And a $37,260 deposit demanded before anyone would look.
The office said it was disqualified in 2022, the AG disagreed, and in 2024 the office decided on its own that no new review was needed.
Three of four parts certified nonexistent, and the fourth priced at $1,863 — with the fee-waiver boxes left blank.
137 pages on how the office tracks officer credibility — and an answer that describes a case-by-case practice, not a maintained list.
The bar raid was the subject. The reports test a trash pull and a traffic stop. The biggest confirmed quantity is 26.4 grams, not the four ounces the press described.
Certified: no RFP, no bid, no purchase order. Produced: the emails showing PAAM ran the procurement and Karpel won 52 of 66 county votes.
46 pages produced for the new case management system. Five other systems were certified as records that do not exist.
Seven systems named, versions and all, at no charge and with no exemption claimed. The only complete grant in the archive.
Two lawsuits produced, including a $60,000 settlement. Two categories certified as nonexistent, one refused under MCR 9.126, and no complaint log at all.
A six-year request for every audit of the prosecutor's office returned five county financial statements — and left out fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2024 without a word of explanation.
The office produced four Adult Case Tracking reports with 11/30/2023 run dates, withheld county reports as attorney-client, and certified performance reviews nonexistent.
Every 2024 email and text, in four categories. The requester offered to take a log first. The office quoted 1,440 hours of work and a $31,514.40 deposit instead.
Denied as nonexistent. Denied again as nonexistent. Then granted — for $13,248 and a 180-day wait. What the office produced instead were the court's statistics, not its own.
A four-day, zero-dollar denial that checks “Exempt from Disclosure” and “Record Does Not Exist” on the same form — then points to a 25-135 production that contains four jury trial sheets.
A request for 2024 forfeiture dockets in cases later dismissed or not convicted. Answer: a certificate of nonexistence, no search described, no exemption cited.
A ten-day extension for the “volume” of records, then a certificate that no records exist. No fee, no pages, no exemption cited.
A ten-day extension for the “volume” of records, then a certificate that no records exist. No fee, no pages, no exemption cited.
Summary of every criminal case prosecuted to trial in calendar year 2024, with case number, defendant initials, charges, trial outcome and felony/misdemeanor classification
A ten-day extension for the “volume” of records, then a certificate that no records exist. No fee, no pages, no exemption cited.
“Monthly summary does not exist,” certified — with a yearly screening table attached to the same letter. Then $2,815.20 for the underlying data, a $1,407.60 deposit, and 180 days.
Two of four items denied as nonexistent, then billed 118.1 hours to find dates the office said it did not have. The Board upheld it.
Deadline extended, then a $1,041.60 quote and a $520.80 deposit demanded before a single page is produced.
Three years of warrant counts by police agency released. Case-outcome and performance records: said not to exist.
Two defendants, one eight-hour assault, and a plea record that shows a man sentenced above his own recommendation while his co-defendant took a longer maximum on a non-sexual charge.
Read the case watchTwo men were arraigned after the April 2024 UPSET raid. The office produced one man's judgments and never mentioned the other.
Read the case watchOne UPSET traffic stop produced two charging files that the office described in mutually exclusive terms.
Read the case watchA 0.176 BAC, a charging decision, and the records the office has released about a death in Delta County.
Read the case watchThree felonies dismissed in a single sentence citing a federal prosecution the file never documents.
Read the case watchA homicide witness said a sergeant told her she was too drunk to drive, invited her to his home, and threatened her. The state police called it unfounded. The appeals court called his role pertinent.
Read the case watchA press release corrected a TV story and put a number on a drug seizure. The charging complaint for the same stop puts no number on it at all — and the same letter granted, re-granted, and then denied the records behind it.
Read the case watchFOIA is only useful when the public can see what was asked, what was produced, and what was withheld. This site turns each request into a permanent, searchable page with the underlying redacted documents, a plain-language analysis, and the legal standards that apply.
Each FOIA has a stable URL, a request identifier, a submission date, the agency's response, fee information, appeal history, and redacted source documents.
Documented facts, the agency's position, legal interpretation, and open questions are labeled separately. Denials are not assumed to be unlawful.
Requester names, home addresses, personal phone numbers, and email addresses are removed before publication. Unredacted originals are kept off the public web server.
New requests, responses, and analysis are posted to the WickmanWatch Facebook Page. Follow it to get updates and share public records with your neighbors.
Follow the WickmanWatch Facebook PageChange log
Every page that changed, the date it changed, and what changed on it. The strip pauses when you hover over it or tab into it.
