Historical score archive

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-290-response (official statement), FOIA 26-290: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-290, a six-item request about victim-services staffing and grant funding. The letter acknowledges a request 'dated October 25, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on October 26, 2026' and is signed by the FOIA Coordinator. Items 1 through 5 are each described as 'granted' and then withheld in the same paragraph: the records 'will not be provided pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994)' because they were 'previously provided' in FOIA 25-279, 'sent on or about December 18, 2025.' Item 6 -- whether any victim-services function is performed by a contracted provider rather than an employee -- is not addressed anywhere in the letter. The office asserts that 'no staff titles or position have changed' and that 'the individuals involved in that role has not changed,' and describes the earlier production as including 'CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years' and quarterly reports. No fee is quoted, no cost estimate is offered, no Notice of Denial form is attached, no subsection of MCL 15.243 is cited, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. The letter does state that the office has eight employees, one of whom is a victim advocate. FOIA 25-279, already documented on this site, contains no responsive documents at all: it 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. The letter also names no page, document or exhibit in the earlier production that answers any of the five items. — source
• EV-26-291-response (official statement), FOIA 26-291: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-291, a six-item follow-up to the privilege assertions made in FOIA 25-195. Items 1 through 3 are 'granted in part, denied in part' and answered with a nine-row, three-column table headed Document Name, Sent on, Author. Every row names the same author, Prosecutor Wickman. The rows are dated out of order -- two 2024 entries sit between 2023 entries -- and carry the office's own misspellings ('Accomodations', 'Conservatin', 'Interium', 'Adminstrator'). The table lists documents that were produced; it states no privilege for any entry, identifies no withheld record, and is not a privilege log. The letter cites 'MCL 15.243(9)' as the attorney-client exemption. Section 15.243 of the Michigan Compiled Laws ends at subsection (4); the attorney-client exemption is MCL 15.243(1)(g). Four paragraphs after asserting privilege, the same letter states that the 25-195 records 'were not deemed privileged as they were provided to the Board of Commissioners not in the Delta County Prosecutor's capacity as civil counsel, but as part of a budget presentation that was done publicly at a Board meeting.' Items 4 and 5 -- the written privilege policy and related correspondence -- are denied as nonexistent. Item 6, the count of records withheld in full and in part, is not addressed. No fee is quoted, no Notice of Denial form is attached, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. — source
• EV-26-292-response (official statement), FOIA 26-292: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-292, a request for twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for calendar 2025, asked as a count only with the underlying case-level data expressly excluded. The letter reproduces the requester's 'SCOPE LIMITATIONS -- WHAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT ASK FOR' list, subsections (a) through (f), and then uses subsection (f) against the request: 'Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided, subject to statutorily necessary redactions and exemptions. However, as you specify in your request under Scope Limitations subsection (f) that is not a portion of your request. Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted.' Subsection (f) was written to say the request did not ask the office to compile, calculate or derive anything -- a cost-saving sentence that the office read as an exclusion of the number itself. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied: the aggregate 'Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report' was 'generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access' to it, and was 'previously provided to you in FOIA Request 25-94 and 25-195.' Neither production is described anywhere in this archive as containing that report: 25-94 produced three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023, and 25-195 produced two budget memoranda and four Adult Case Tracking reports run on November 30, 2023. Paragraph 4 is denied as nonexistent. No fee is quoted and no estimate is offered, although the letter says the records 'could be located and provided.' No Notice of Denial form is attached and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. This is the third time the office has conceded in writing that the underlying data exists while declining the aggregate, after 25-278 and 26-28. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-26-31-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-31: Notice of Denial for request 26-31. Request No. 26-31; Date Received 02/09/2026; Date of Notice 02/12/2026. Box 1, 'Exempt from Disclosure ... FOIA Section 13, Subsection ___', is checked, with the reason line reading 'DUPLICATIVE REQUEST. PURSUANT TO DENSMORE v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994)'. The subsection line is left blank. Boxes 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) are unmarked. Densmore is a judicial decision about duplicative requests, not a section 13 statutory exemption, so checking box 1 with a blank subsection does not match the authority the letter actually invokes. The form carries the MCL 15.240 appeal notice and the packet encloses a blank Denial Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-31-eight-record-list (documented fact), FOIA 26-31: The eight-item responsive-records list in the 26-31 letter. The request asked for 'aggregate numerical data only'; the response supplies an inventory of eight documents and no figure. A list of eight withheld items is itself a count, but the office neither presents it as an answer nor states that eight is the total. Four of the eight items are dated e-mail communications, all in 2024; the remaining four are an MSP report and three special-prosecutor filings. The list contains no attendance log and no prosecutor calendar, so on the face of the response the office keeps no such log. The letter does not describe the search that produced the list, does not say which custodians or systems were queried, and does not state whether the list is complete for 2021, 2022, 2023 or 2025. — source
• EV-26-31-prior-production-absent (analysis), FOIA 26-31: The 26-31 denial rests entirely on the premise that the eight documents were 'already provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-267.' This archive holds no record of FOIA 25-267, and a full-text search of its published PDFs returns no hit for the MSP report number '80-03-24' or for 'Mackinac County Prosecutor'. The archive's 25-241 special-prosecutor production contains a 'Petition for Appointment of Special Prosecutor' and MSP incident numbers 84-1384-22 and 84-717-24, neither of which matches 80-03-24. The office also imposes a 'justification or need' condition the Act does not state: MCL 15.233(1) governs the description of the record sought, not the requester's reason for wanting it. Recorded as an unresolved premise, not a finding that 25-267 does not exist. — source
• EV-26-31-response (official statement), FOIA 26-31: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-31, the request for 'any existing logs, reports, calendars, or aggregate records reflecting instances in which a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor was physically present at a crime scene' from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025, 'aggregate numerical data only,' with an express instruction that the request 'does not require creation of a new record.' The office acknowledged receipt February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 -- three business days, inside MCL 15.235(2). Rather than supply a number, the letter lists eight 'responsive records' (MSP Report 80-03-24 and attachments; e-mail communications of 05/24/2024, 02/05/2024, 02/06/2024 and 05/30/2024; a Petition for Appointment of Special Prosecutor; an Order for Special Prosecutor; and a Statement of No Action from the Mackinac County Prosecutor). It then denies production: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-267. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). Due to the responsive records being duplicative, your request is DENIED.' Every dated item on the list falls in 2024 although 2021-2025 was requested, and the letter does not state whether the list is complete for the other four years. No log and no calendar appear on the list. — source
• EV-26-32-appeal-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 25-278 appeal as filed (pages 59-65), together with the 'Fwd: Appeal' email of December 19, 2025. The appeal cites the fee figures of $23,146.66 and $11,573.33, which do not match the $16,533.33 and $6,613.33 printed on the itemization produced in the same file - the appeal and the itemization describe the same work at different totals. The bundle shows the office handling an appeal of its own fee estimate while, in the same production, releasing the memos that explain why the underlying records were lost. — source
• EV-26-32-denial (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-32, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The only reason recorded is reason 3, Redaction, and the only exemption cited is MCL 15.243(1)(a), applied to 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' The bundle reproduces MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. This is the narrowest denial in the archive: it withholds contact information only, names the exemption, and produces every substantive record the request described. — source
• EV-26-32-email-thread (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Eight-page email exchange among the office. On January 3, 2026 Christine Williams proposes that ProsecutorByKarpel's court-form ingestion feature be used to reconstruct the migrated data, writing that it 'may cost additional money but might be much less than what was quoted for manual preparation.' On January 4, 2026 Prosecutor Wickman replies that 'We have not reentered this information because we don't have time,' confirming that the office has chosen not to restore the lost data and has weighed a cheaper technical route against manual preparation. The exchange is the office's own account, in its own words, that the migrated data was not reentered and that a lower-cost reconstruction option was on the table. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-195 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195' (September 15, 2025). It restates the migration account and supplies the third per-file time estimate in the file, alongside the 20-minute figure in the 25-94 memo and the 14-minute figure in the 25-278 itemization. Read together with the February 2026 letters, which used a 5-minute figure, the archive now holds four different per-file estimates - 20, 14 and 5 minutes - for the same reconstruction work, each produced by the same office within eight months. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278' (December 31, 2025) and its attachments, including the 25-278 request as received and the seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization. The response to 25-278 states that there are 'mistakes and issues being found with the migrated information on nearly a weekly basis.' The itemization prices the work at 14 minutes per file: line 1 is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 for $16,533.33, and line 3a is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 for $6,613.33, against a $24.82 hourly wage and a $6.20 charge per quarter hour. The fractional-increment arithmetic repeats the same $4.13 overcharge seen elsewhere in the archive - the form's own round-down rule does not support the printed increment count - and the overcharge appears on two lines, $8.26 on the subtotal. The 14-minute figure here is the middle of three different per-file time estimates for the same reconstruction work. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-94 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94' (June 16, 2025), the central document in the release. It states that 'On June 10, 2024, the Delta County Prosecutor's Office went live with Karpel'; that 'the data did not transition completely, or accurately due to different inputs'; that 'This inconsistent and inaccurate transition was a possibility that we were warned of prior to the implementation'; that 'access to the previous case tracking system or its exact data is no longer available'; and that 'Because the root files are not organized by year (only by name), searching for outcomes by any particular year is not viable.' It prices reconstruction at 20 minutes per file, 105 files per week, over '104 weeks, or 1.87 YEARS,' for $66,648.40. This is the office's own admission that it was warned before implementation, that the transition was incomplete and inaccurate, that the old data is gone, and that the file structure makes year-based retrieval impossible by design. — source
• EV-26-32-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 10:22 a.m. Eastern through IPFone, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for 'Any records discussing how the system migration affects the Prosecutor's Office's ability to respond to FOIA requests,' adds the no-new-record sentence, and invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver. The request is narrow and self-describing: it names the subject, the custodian and the document class, and it does not ask the office to create a record. It is the request whose grant produced the 95-page release in this file. — source
• EV-26-32-response (official statement), FOIA 26-32: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-32, 'Impact of Migration on FOIA Responses.' The request was dated February 6, 2026 and received February 9, 2026; the letter is dated February 12, 2026, the third business day, inside MCL 15.235(1) with no extension taken. The disposition is 'GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The office produces five named records - the email exchange entitled 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195,' and the email exchange entitled 'Fwd: Appeal' - and denies in part only as to redacted contact information, citing MCL 15.243(1)(a) and describing the withheld material as 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' No fee is quoted. The records produced are exactly the records the request described, and the office answered its own prior denial by producing the migration memos it had previously withheld. — source
• EV-26-33-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-33: Notice of Denial dated 02/17/2026 for request 26-33. Box 2, 'Record Does Not Exist', is checked and agrees with the letter's certificate of nonexistence. Boxes 1 (Exempt from Disclosure) and 3 (Redaction) are unmarked. 'Date Received' is recorded as 02/10/2026, matching the letter and the itemization. The form carries the MCL 15.240 notice of the right to seek judicial review. This is a complete denial form whose checked box matches the disposition stated in the letter. — source
• EV-26-33-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-33: Six-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated 02/17/2026. Line 1 (locate) charges 880 increments at $6.20 for $5,456.00, from 1,100 files/year across four years at three minutes per file. Line 3a (redact) charges 586.66 increments at $6.20 for $3,637.33, from 4,400 files at two minutes per file. Subtotal $9,093.33; 50% deposit $4,546.66; estimate 270 days. The form instructs the coordinator twice that 'all partial time increments must be rounded down'; 8,800 minutes is 586.67 increments, which rounds down to 586 and $3,633.20, not the $3,637.33 charged -- a $4.13 discrepancy in the county's favour. The public-interest waiver section quotes MCL 15.234, leaves both 'waived' and 'reduced' boxes unmarked, and leaves 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' blank; the deposit is calculated on the pre-waiver subtotal. The indigence and nonprofit discount boxes are likewise unmarked. — source
• EV-26-33-response (official statement), FOIA 26-33: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-33, the request for the total number of deferred prosecution agreements entered, 2022-2025. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The denial is narrow and statutory: 'A review of the records ... reveals no record that currently documents an "aggregate" or a "total number". A record or document stating the "total number of deferred prosecution agreements" would require the creation of a new record. As such, the request for an existing record ... is DENIED.' A certificate of nonexistence follows. The grant concedes the data exists: 'the underlying data exists to allow for the calculation of the "aggregate" or "total number" as requested' and 'could be provided in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' The letter names four deferral statutes (MCL 771.1, 769.4a, 333.7411, 762.11) and scopes the population to agreements the office is party to, excluding cases the court places on a deferred sentence unilaterally. It requires a 50% deposit and estimates 270 days. Receipt is recorded as February 10, 2026 and the response as February 17, 2026, consistent across the letter, the denial form and the itemization. — source
• EV-26-33-sibling-contrast (analysis), FOIA 26-33: Comparison of 26-33 with its sibling 26-34, faxed two minutes later on February 9, 2026 and answered the same day by the same coordinator. 26-33 names MCL 771.1, 769.4a, 333.7411 and 762.11 as deferral provisions and prices a search of 4,400 files for them; 26-34 defines 'diversion programs' as juvenile diversion under MCL 722.821 and states 'There are no other "diversion programs" within Delta County.' The two letters use different vocabularies and can each be defended, but together they leave the public unable to tell whether deferred-sentence cases exist in Delta County, and neither letter describes the search behind its conclusion. This is recorded as an unresolved consistency question, not a finding of contradiction. — source
• EV-26-34-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-34: The Delta County Denial Form enclosed with the 26-34 response. Request No. 26-34; 'Date Received: 02/10/2026'; 'Date of This Notice: 02/17/2026'. Of the three printed reasons, box 2 -- 'Record Does Not Exist: This item does not exist under the name provided in your request or by another name reasonably known to the County. A certificate that the public record does not exist under the name given is attached.' -- is the one marked. Box 1, 'Exempt from Disclosure', and box 3, 'Redaction', are unmarked, and the blank after 'FOIA Section 13, Subsection ___ (insert number)' is left empty. The form therefore records no exemption and no statutory subsection, and it supplies no description of the records searched. The 'Date Received' field is the second of the three receipt dates the packet carries for a single fax. — source
• EV-26-34-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-34: The office's own IPFone fax notification and the forwarded internal e-mail, both enclosed in the 26-34 packet. The fax notification records a one-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 01:18 PM', with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 01:18:09 PM -05:00'. The request form itself is dated February 9, 2026. At 1:22 p.m. that afternoon the FOIA Coordinator forwarded the requester's date-range clarification to the county administrator, the prosecutor and two staff members under the subject 'Fwd: Two FOIAs sent', writing: 'The email below is the clarification of the date range for the two FOIA's we just received today by way of fax. Tracy has not yet assigned a number. They just came in.' The same coordinator's February 17 letter states that the request was 'received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026'. Counted from February 9 and excluding the weekend and the February 16, 2026 state holiday, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235 is February 17, so the response is timely on every reading of the receipt date; the defect is in the office's record of its own receipt, not in the timing. — source
• EV-26-34-response (official statement), FOIA 26-34: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-34, the request for the aggregate number of criminal cases resolved through diversion programmes in 2022-2025. The disposition is 'DENIED'. The denial is definitional rather than exemption-based: the letter reasons that 'diversion programs' is 'traditionally a program only referring to juvenile diversion program administered by Probate Courts, as outlined in the Juvenile Diversion Act, Act 13 of 1988, MCL 722.821 et al.', that such records 'are maintained by the Probate Court of the juvenile's respective county', that the office 'does not maintain records related to individuals placed within a juvenile diversion program', and that 'There are no other diversion programs within Delta County.' On that premise the coordinator certifies that 'after a search for records and to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief the public record requested ... does not exist within the records of the public body under the name nor any other name reasonably known to the public body.' The certification asserts that a search occurred but names no system searched, no custodian consulted and no date range applied, and the letter cites no subsection of MCL 15.243. It closes by inviting 'clarifying information related to this request' and offering that 'we will review the matter anew' -- a genuine avenue for reconsideration that also shifts the burden of vocabulary to the requester. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee waiver the request invoked: it is neither granted, denied nor declared moot. Its opening sentence states that the request was 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026', although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own fax log and forwarded e-mail fix receipt on February 9. — source
• EV-26-35-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The office's own IPFone fax notification, addressed to its administrative fax mailbox and enclosed in the response packet. It records a two-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 02:06 PM,' with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 02:05:51 PM -05:00' and a page count of two. This is the document that fixes the start of the clock: the request reached the office on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 2:05 p.m. Eastern, not on February 17 as the response letter states. Counted from February 9, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235(1) is February 17, because February 16, 2026 is a state holiday and is not counted; the response therefore lands on the last available day and is timely, but only because of the holiday. Counted from the letter's own stated receipt date the response would be same-day, which is why the discrepancy matters: the office's account of its own timeliness is contradicted by the record it enclosed. — source
• EV-26-35-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The request form dated February 9, 2026. It asks for the aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted in January 2026, expressly excluding 'minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters,' and states that the requester 'seeks only an aggregate numerical total' and that 'No case files, names, identifiers, or personally identifiable information are requested.' It adds that the request 'does not require the creation of a new public record' and that it 'includes any existing reports, summaries, database query results, or electronic exports' -- so the requester asked for an existing aggregate, not a new compilation, and the office's 85-minute hand count was a method of its own choosing. The form invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks the office to identify itself if it believes the request requires a fee. Its reasonable-basis paragraph describes observing a plea proceeding on 'February 9, 2025,' almost certainly a typographical error for 2026, and the form cites 'five (5) business days as required by MCL 15.235(2)' -- the five-day period is in subsection (1), not (2). The request is narrow, self-limiting and unambiguous on its face. — source
• EV-26-35-response (official statement), FOIA 26-35: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-35, the January 2026 plea-agreement count. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED.' The letter reports that the office's review of District and Circuit Court dockets 'documented the entry of 52 pleas in District or Circuit Court that were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.' It concedes that 'This number includes misdemeanor level traffic tickets, as a differentiation of minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters is too broad to allow for clear differentiation in response' -- so the 52 is an admitted ceiling rather than an exact count of the class the request described, and no partial denial is entered on that ground. It states that 'There does not exist a document or record of an aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted,' and that the compilation 'was done out of a courtesy and effort in transparency,' taking 'approximately 85 minutes.' No fee is quoted. The letter closes by reserving future charges: 'the granting of this request does not mean that future requests will not be subject to a fee estimation.' Two date defects appear on the face of the letter: it describes the request as 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026,' although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own enclosed fax notification records receipt at 2:05:51 p.m. Eastern on February 9; and it says the plea was observed 'on February 9, 2026' in its first sentence and 'On January 9, 2026' five sentences later. The letter is signed by the Chief Prosecuting Attorney and FOIA Coordinator. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-11-02-04 · hash a3a4af8e33df64a9275ae2a87b166dcb581b2eab48ef3857c4c6f5ae46547535

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-290-response (official statement), FOIA 26-290: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-290, a six-item request about victim-services staffing and grant funding. The letter acknowledges a request 'dated October 25, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on October 26, 2026' and is signed by the FOIA Coordinator. Items 1 through 5 are each described as 'granted' and then withheld in the same paragraph: the records 'will not be provided pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994)' because they were 'previously provided' in FOIA 25-279, 'sent on or about December 18, 2025.' Item 6 -- whether any victim-services function is performed by a contracted provider rather than an employee -- is not addressed anywhere in the letter. The office asserts that 'no staff titles or position have changed' and that 'the individuals involved in that role has not changed,' and describes the earlier production as including 'CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years' and quarterly reports. No fee is quoted, no cost estimate is offered, no Notice of Denial form is attached, no subsection of MCL 15.243 is cited, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. The letter does state that the office has eight employees, one of whom is a victim advocate. FOIA 25-279, already documented on this site, contains no responsive documents at all: it 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. The letter also names no page, document or exhibit in the earlier production that answers any of the five items. — source
• EV-26-291-response (official statement), FOIA 26-291: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-291, a six-item follow-up to the privilege assertions made in FOIA 25-195. Items 1 through 3 are 'granted in part, denied in part' and answered with a nine-row, three-column table headed Document Name, Sent on, Author. Every row names the same author, Prosecutor Wickman. The rows are dated out of order -- two 2024 entries sit between 2023 entries -- and carry the office's own misspellings ('Accomodations', 'Conservatin', 'Interium', 'Adminstrator'). The table lists documents that were produced; it states no privilege for any entry, identifies no withheld record, and is not a privilege log. The letter cites 'MCL 15.243(9)' as the attorney-client exemption. Section 15.243 of the Michigan Compiled Laws ends at subsection (4); the attorney-client exemption is MCL 15.243(1)(g). Four paragraphs after asserting privilege, the same letter states that the 25-195 records 'were not deemed privileged as they were provided to the Board of Commissioners not in the Delta County Prosecutor's capacity as civil counsel, but as part of a budget presentation that was done publicly at a Board meeting.' Items 4 and 5 -- the written privilege policy and related correspondence -- are denied as nonexistent. Item 6, the count of records withheld in full and in part, is not addressed. No fee is quoted, no Notice of Denial form is attached, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. — source
• EV-26-292-response (official statement), FOIA 26-292: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-292, a request for twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for calendar 2025, asked as a count only with the underlying case-level data expressly excluded. The letter reproduces the requester's 'SCOPE LIMITATIONS -- WHAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT ASK FOR' list, subsections (a) through (f), and then uses subsection (f) against the request: 'Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided, subject to statutorily necessary redactions and exemptions. However, as you specify in your request under Scope Limitations subsection (f) that is not a portion of your request. Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted.' Subsection (f) was written to say the request did not ask the office to compile, calculate or derive anything -- a cost-saving sentence that the office read as an exclusion of the number itself. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied: the aggregate 'Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report' was 'generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access' to it, and was 'previously provided to you in FOIA Request 25-94 and 25-195.' Neither production is described anywhere in this archive as containing that report: 25-94 produced three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023, and 25-195 produced two budget memoranda and four Adult Case Tracking reports run on November 30, 2023. Paragraph 4 is denied as nonexistent. No fee is quoted and no estimate is offered, although the letter says the records 'could be located and provided.' No Notice of Denial form is attached and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. This is the third time the office has conceded in writing that the underlying data exists while declining the aggregate, after 25-278 and 26-28. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-26-32-appeal-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 25-278 appeal as filed (pages 59-65), together with the 'Fwd: Appeal' email of December 19, 2025. The appeal cites the fee figures of $23,146.66 and $11,573.33, which do not match the $16,533.33 and $6,613.33 printed on the itemization produced in the same file - the appeal and the itemization describe the same work at different totals. The bundle shows the office handling an appeal of its own fee estimate while, in the same production, releasing the memos that explain why the underlying records were lost. — source
• EV-26-32-denial (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-32, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The only reason recorded is reason 3, Redaction, and the only exemption cited is MCL 15.243(1)(a), applied to 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' The bundle reproduces MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. This is the narrowest denial in the archive: it withholds contact information only, names the exemption, and produces every substantive record the request described. — source
• EV-26-32-email-thread (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Eight-page email exchange among the office. On January 3, 2026 Christine Williams proposes that ProsecutorByKarpel's court-form ingestion feature be used to reconstruct the migrated data, writing that it 'may cost additional money but might be much less than what was quoted for manual preparation.' On January 4, 2026 Prosecutor Wickman replies that 'We have not reentered this information because we don't have time,' confirming that the office has chosen not to restore the lost data and has weighed a cheaper technical route against manual preparation. The exchange is the office's own account, in its own words, that the migrated data was not reentered and that a lower-cost reconstruction option was on the table. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-195 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195' (September 15, 2025). It restates the migration account and supplies the third per-file time estimate in the file, alongside the 20-minute figure in the 25-94 memo and the 14-minute figure in the 25-278 itemization. Read together with the February 2026 letters, which used a 5-minute figure, the archive now holds four different per-file estimates - 20, 14 and 5 minutes - for the same reconstruction work, each produced by the same office within eight months. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278' (December 31, 2025) and its attachments, including the 25-278 request as received and the seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization. The response to 25-278 states that there are 'mistakes and issues being found with the migrated information on nearly a weekly basis.' The itemization prices the work at 14 minutes per file: line 1 is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 for $16,533.33, and line 3a is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 for $6,613.33, against a $24.82 hourly wage and a $6.20 charge per quarter hour. The fractional-increment arithmetic repeats the same $4.13 overcharge seen elsewhere in the archive - the form's own round-down rule does not support the printed increment count - and the overcharge appears on two lines, $8.26 on the subtotal. The 14-minute figure here is the middle of three different per-file time estimates for the same reconstruction work. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-94 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94' (June 16, 2025), the central document in the release. It states that 'On June 10, 2024, the Delta County Prosecutor's Office went live with Karpel'; that 'the data did not transition completely, or accurately due to different inputs'; that 'This inconsistent and inaccurate transition was a possibility that we were warned of prior to the implementation'; that 'access to the previous case tracking system or its exact data is no longer available'; and that 'Because the root files are not organized by year (only by name), searching for outcomes by any particular year is not viable.' It prices reconstruction at 20 minutes per file, 105 files per week, over '104 weeks, or 1.87 YEARS,' for $66,648.40. This is the office's own admission that it was warned before implementation, that the transition was incomplete and inaccurate, that the old data is gone, and that the file structure makes year-based retrieval impossible by design. — source
• EV-26-32-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 10:22 a.m. Eastern through IPFone, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for 'Any records discussing how the system migration affects the Prosecutor's Office's ability to respond to FOIA requests,' adds the no-new-record sentence, and invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver. The request is narrow and self-describing: it names the subject, the custodian and the document class, and it does not ask the office to create a record. It is the request whose grant produced the 95-page release in this file. — source
• EV-26-32-response (official statement), FOIA 26-32: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-32, 'Impact of Migration on FOIA Responses.' The request was dated February 6, 2026 and received February 9, 2026; the letter is dated February 12, 2026, the third business day, inside MCL 15.235(1) with no extension taken. The disposition is 'GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The office produces five named records - the email exchange entitled 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195,' and the email exchange entitled 'Fwd: Appeal' - and denies in part only as to redacted contact information, citing MCL 15.243(1)(a) and describing the withheld material as 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' No fee is quoted. The records produced are exactly the records the request described, and the office answered its own prior denial by producing the migration memos it had previously withheld. — source
• EV-26-33-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-33: Notice of Denial dated 02/17/2026 for request 26-33. Box 2, 'Record Does Not Exist', is checked and agrees with the letter's certificate of nonexistence. Boxes 1 (Exempt from Disclosure) and 3 (Redaction) are unmarked. 'Date Received' is recorded as 02/10/2026, matching the letter and the itemization. The form carries the MCL 15.240 notice of the right to seek judicial review. This is a complete denial form whose checked box matches the disposition stated in the letter. — source
• EV-26-33-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-33: Six-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated 02/17/2026. Line 1 (locate) charges 880 increments at $6.20 for $5,456.00, from 1,100 files/year across four years at three minutes per file. Line 3a (redact) charges 586.66 increments at $6.20 for $3,637.33, from 4,400 files at two minutes per file. Subtotal $9,093.33; 50% deposit $4,546.66; estimate 270 days. The form instructs the coordinator twice that 'all partial time increments must be rounded down'; 8,800 minutes is 586.67 increments, which rounds down to 586 and $3,633.20, not the $3,637.33 charged -- a $4.13 discrepancy in the county's favour. The public-interest waiver section quotes MCL 15.234, leaves both 'waived' and 'reduced' boxes unmarked, and leaves 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' blank; the deposit is calculated on the pre-waiver subtotal. The indigence and nonprofit discount boxes are likewise unmarked. — source
• EV-26-33-response (official statement), FOIA 26-33: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-33, the request for the total number of deferred prosecution agreements entered, 2022-2025. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The denial is narrow and statutory: 'A review of the records ... reveals no record that currently documents an "aggregate" or a "total number". A record or document stating the "total number of deferred prosecution agreements" would require the creation of a new record. As such, the request for an existing record ... is DENIED.' A certificate of nonexistence follows. The grant concedes the data exists: 'the underlying data exists to allow for the calculation of the "aggregate" or "total number" as requested' and 'could be provided in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' The letter names four deferral statutes (MCL 771.1, 769.4a, 333.7411, 762.11) and scopes the population to agreements the office is party to, excluding cases the court places on a deferred sentence unilaterally. It requires a 50% deposit and estimates 270 days. Receipt is recorded as February 10, 2026 and the response as February 17, 2026, consistent across the letter, the denial form and the itemization. — source
• EV-26-33-sibling-contrast (analysis), FOIA 26-33: Comparison of 26-33 with its sibling 26-34, faxed two minutes later on February 9, 2026 and answered the same day by the same coordinator. 26-33 names MCL 771.1, 769.4a, 333.7411 and 762.11 as deferral provisions and prices a search of 4,400 files for them; 26-34 defines 'diversion programs' as juvenile diversion under MCL 722.821 and states 'There are no other "diversion programs" within Delta County.' The two letters use different vocabularies and can each be defended, but together they leave the public unable to tell whether deferred-sentence cases exist in Delta County, and neither letter describes the search behind its conclusion. This is recorded as an unresolved consistency question, not a finding of contradiction. — source
• EV-26-34-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-34: The Delta County Denial Form enclosed with the 26-34 response. Request No. 26-34; 'Date Received: 02/10/2026'; 'Date of This Notice: 02/17/2026'. Of the three printed reasons, box 2 -- 'Record Does Not Exist: This item does not exist under the name provided in your request or by another name reasonably known to the County. A certificate that the public record does not exist under the name given is attached.' -- is the one marked. Box 1, 'Exempt from Disclosure', and box 3, 'Redaction', are unmarked, and the blank after 'FOIA Section 13, Subsection ___ (insert number)' is left empty. The form therefore records no exemption and no statutory subsection, and it supplies no description of the records searched. The 'Date Received' field is the second of the three receipt dates the packet carries for a single fax. — source
• EV-26-34-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-34: The office's own IPFone fax notification and the forwarded internal e-mail, both enclosed in the 26-34 packet. The fax notification records a one-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 01:18 PM', with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 01:18:09 PM -05:00'. The request form itself is dated February 9, 2026. At 1:22 p.m. that afternoon the FOIA Coordinator forwarded the requester's date-range clarification to the county administrator, the prosecutor and two staff members under the subject 'Fwd: Two FOIAs sent', writing: 'The email below is the clarification of the date range for the two FOIA's we just received today by way of fax. Tracy has not yet assigned a number. They just came in.' The same coordinator's February 17 letter states that the request was 'received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026'. Counted from February 9 and excluding the weekend and the February 16, 2026 state holiday, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235 is February 17, so the response is timely on every reading of the receipt date; the defect is in the office's record of its own receipt, not in the timing. — source
• EV-26-34-response (official statement), FOIA 26-34: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-34, the request for the aggregate number of criminal cases resolved through diversion programmes in 2022-2025. The disposition is 'DENIED'. The denial is definitional rather than exemption-based: the letter reasons that 'diversion programs' is 'traditionally a program only referring to juvenile diversion program administered by Probate Courts, as outlined in the Juvenile Diversion Act, Act 13 of 1988, MCL 722.821 et al.', that such records 'are maintained by the Probate Court of the juvenile's respective county', that the office 'does not maintain records related to individuals placed within a juvenile diversion program', and that 'There are no other diversion programs within Delta County.' On that premise the coordinator certifies that 'after a search for records and to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief the public record requested ... does not exist within the records of the public body under the name nor any other name reasonably known to the public body.' The certification asserts that a search occurred but names no system searched, no custodian consulted and no date range applied, and the letter cites no subsection of MCL 15.243. It closes by inviting 'clarifying information related to this request' and offering that 'we will review the matter anew' -- a genuine avenue for reconsideration that also shifts the burden of vocabulary to the requester. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee waiver the request invoked: it is neither granted, denied nor declared moot. Its opening sentence states that the request was 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026', although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own fax log and forwarded e-mail fix receipt on February 9. — source
• EV-26-35-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The office's own IPFone fax notification, addressed to its administrative fax mailbox and enclosed in the response packet. It records a two-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 02:06 PM,' with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 02:05:51 PM -05:00' and a page count of two. This is the document that fixes the start of the clock: the request reached the office on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 2:05 p.m. Eastern, not on February 17 as the response letter states. Counted from February 9, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235(1) is February 17, because February 16, 2026 is a state holiday and is not counted; the response therefore lands on the last available day and is timely, but only because of the holiday. Counted from the letter's own stated receipt date the response would be same-day, which is why the discrepancy matters: the office's account of its own timeliness is contradicted by the record it enclosed. — source
• EV-26-35-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The request form dated February 9, 2026. It asks for the aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted in January 2026, expressly excluding 'minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters,' and states that the requester 'seeks only an aggregate numerical total' and that 'No case files, names, identifiers, or personally identifiable information are requested.' It adds that the request 'does not require the creation of a new public record' and that it 'includes any existing reports, summaries, database query results, or electronic exports' -- so the requester asked for an existing aggregate, not a new compilation, and the office's 85-minute hand count was a method of its own choosing. The form invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks the office to identify itself if it believes the request requires a fee. Its reasonable-basis paragraph describes observing a plea proceeding on 'February 9, 2025,' almost certainly a typographical error for 2026, and the form cites 'five (5) business days as required by MCL 15.235(2)' -- the five-day period is in subsection (1), not (2). The request is narrow, self-limiting and unambiguous on its face. — source
• EV-26-35-response (official statement), FOIA 26-35: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-35, the January 2026 plea-agreement count. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED.' The letter reports that the office's review of District and Circuit Court dockets 'documented the entry of 52 pleas in District or Circuit Court that were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.' It concedes that 'This number includes misdemeanor level traffic tickets, as a differentiation of minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters is too broad to allow for clear differentiation in response' -- so the 52 is an admitted ceiling rather than an exact count of the class the request described, and no partial denial is entered on that ground. It states that 'There does not exist a document or record of an aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted,' and that the compilation 'was done out of a courtesy and effort in transparency,' taking 'approximately 85 minutes.' No fee is quoted. The letter closes by reserving future charges: 'the granting of this request does not mean that future requests will not be subject to a fee estimation.' Two date defects appear on the face of the letter: it describes the request as 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026,' although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own enclosed fax notification records receipt at 2:05:51 p.m. Eastern on February 9; and it says the plea was observed 'on February 9, 2026' in its first sentence and 'On January 9, 2026' five sentences later. The letter is signed by the Chief Prosecuting Attorney and FOIA Coordinator. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-11-02-03 · hash fe5dd01f671d93c8623536e0095df340b241606ad56087a66745e6a5756a6f84

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-290-response (official statement), FOIA 26-290: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-290, a six-item request about victim-services staffing and grant funding. The letter acknowledges a request 'dated October 25, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on October 26, 2026' and is signed by the FOIA Coordinator. Items 1 through 5 are each described as 'granted' and then withheld in the same paragraph: the records 'will not be provided pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994)' because they were 'previously provided' in FOIA 25-279, 'sent on or about December 18, 2025.' Item 6 -- whether any victim-services function is performed by a contracted provider rather than an employee -- is not addressed anywhere in the letter. The office asserts that 'no staff titles or position have changed' and that 'the individuals involved in that role has not changed,' and describes the earlier production as including 'CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years' and quarterly reports. No fee is quoted, no cost estimate is offered, no Notice of Denial form is attached, no subsection of MCL 15.243 is cited, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. The letter does state that the office has eight employees, one of whom is a victim advocate. FOIA 25-279, already documented on this site, contains no responsive documents at all: it 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. The letter also names no page, document or exhibit in the earlier production that answers any of the five items. — source
• EV-26-291-response (official statement), FOIA 26-291: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-291, a six-item follow-up to the privilege assertions made in FOIA 25-195. Items 1 through 3 are 'granted in part, denied in part' and answered with a nine-row, three-column table headed Document Name, Sent on, Author. Every row names the same author, Prosecutor Wickman. The rows are dated out of order -- two 2024 entries sit between 2023 entries -- and carry the office's own misspellings ('Accomodations', 'Conservatin', 'Interium', 'Adminstrator'). The table lists documents that were produced; it states no privilege for any entry, identifies no withheld record, and is not a privilege log. The letter cites 'MCL 15.243(9)' as the attorney-client exemption. Section 15.243 of the Michigan Compiled Laws ends at subsection (4); the attorney-client exemption is MCL 15.243(1)(g). Four paragraphs after asserting privilege, the same letter states that the 25-195 records 'were not deemed privileged as they were provided to the Board of Commissioners not in the Delta County Prosecutor's capacity as civil counsel, but as part of a budget presentation that was done publicly at a Board meeting.' Items 4 and 5 -- the written privilege policy and related correspondence -- are denied as nonexistent. Item 6, the count of records withheld in full and in part, is not addressed. No fee is quoted, no Notice of Denial form is attached, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. — source
• EV-26-292-response (official statement), FOIA 26-292: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-292, a request for twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for calendar 2025, asked as a count only with the underlying case-level data expressly excluded. The letter reproduces the requester's 'SCOPE LIMITATIONS -- WHAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT ASK FOR' list, subsections (a) through (f), and then uses subsection (f) against the request: 'Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided, subject to statutorily necessary redactions and exemptions. However, as you specify in your request under Scope Limitations subsection (f) that is not a portion of your request. Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted.' Subsection (f) was written to say the request did not ask the office to compile, calculate or derive anything -- a cost-saving sentence that the office read as an exclusion of the number itself. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied: the aggregate 'Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report' was 'generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access' to it, and was 'previously provided to you in FOIA Request 25-94 and 25-195.' Neither production is described anywhere in this archive as containing that report: 25-94 produced three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023, and 25-195 produced two budget memoranda and four Adult Case Tracking reports run on November 30, 2023. Paragraph 4 is denied as nonexistent. No fee is quoted and no estimate is offered, although the letter says the records 'could be located and provided.' No Notice of Denial form is attached and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. This is the third time the office has conceded in writing that the underlying data exists while declining the aggregate, after 25-278 and 26-28. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-26-32-appeal-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 25-278 appeal as filed (pages 59-65), together with the 'Fwd: Appeal' email of December 19, 2025. The appeal cites the fee figures of $23,146.66 and $11,573.33, which do not match the $16,533.33 and $6,613.33 printed on the itemization produced in the same file - the appeal and the itemization describe the same work at different totals. The bundle shows the office handling an appeal of its own fee estimate while, in the same production, releasing the memos that explain why the underlying records were lost. — source
• EV-26-32-denial (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-32, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The only reason recorded is reason 3, Redaction, and the only exemption cited is MCL 15.243(1)(a), applied to 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' The bundle reproduces MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. This is the narrowest denial in the archive: it withholds contact information only, names the exemption, and produces every substantive record the request described. — source
• EV-26-32-email-thread (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Eight-page email exchange among the office. On January 3, 2026 Christine Williams proposes that ProsecutorByKarpel's court-form ingestion feature be used to reconstruct the migrated data, writing that it 'may cost additional money but might be much less than what was quoted for manual preparation.' On January 4, 2026 Prosecutor Wickman replies that 'We have not reentered this information because we don't have time,' confirming that the office has chosen not to restore the lost data and has weighed a cheaper technical route against manual preparation. The exchange is the office's own account, in its own words, that the migrated data was not reentered and that a lower-cost reconstruction option was on the table. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-195 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195' (September 15, 2025). It restates the migration account and supplies the third per-file time estimate in the file, alongside the 20-minute figure in the 25-94 memo and the 14-minute figure in the 25-278 itemization. Read together with the February 2026 letters, which used a 5-minute figure, the archive now holds four different per-file estimates - 20, 14 and 5 minutes - for the same reconstruction work, each produced by the same office within eight months. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278' (December 31, 2025) and its attachments, including the 25-278 request as received and the seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization. The response to 25-278 states that there are 'mistakes and issues being found with the migrated information on nearly a weekly basis.' The itemization prices the work at 14 minutes per file: line 1 is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 for $16,533.33, and line 3a is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 for $6,613.33, against a $24.82 hourly wage and a $6.20 charge per quarter hour. The fractional-increment arithmetic repeats the same $4.13 overcharge seen elsewhere in the archive - the form's own round-down rule does not support the printed increment count - and the overcharge appears on two lines, $8.26 on the subtotal. The 14-minute figure here is the middle of three different per-file time estimates for the same reconstruction work. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-94 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94' (June 16, 2025), the central document in the release. It states that 'On June 10, 2024, the Delta County Prosecutor's Office went live with Karpel'; that 'the data did not transition completely, or accurately due to different inputs'; that 'This inconsistent and inaccurate transition was a possibility that we were warned of prior to the implementation'; that 'access to the previous case tracking system or its exact data is no longer available'; and that 'Because the root files are not organized by year (only by name), searching for outcomes by any particular year is not viable.' It prices reconstruction at 20 minutes per file, 105 files per week, over '104 weeks, or 1.87 YEARS,' for $66,648.40. This is the office's own admission that it was warned before implementation, that the transition was incomplete and inaccurate, that the old data is gone, and that the file structure makes year-based retrieval impossible by design. — source
• EV-26-32-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 10:22 a.m. Eastern through IPFone, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for 'Any records discussing how the system migration affects the Prosecutor's Office's ability to respond to FOIA requests,' adds the no-new-record sentence, and invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver. The request is narrow and self-describing: it names the subject, the custodian and the document class, and it does not ask the office to create a record. It is the request whose grant produced the 95-page release in this file. — source
• EV-26-32-response (official statement), FOIA 26-32: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-32, 'Impact of Migration on FOIA Responses.' The request was dated February 6, 2026 and received February 9, 2026; the letter is dated February 12, 2026, the third business day, inside MCL 15.235(1) with no extension taken. The disposition is 'GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The office produces five named records - the email exchange entitled 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195,' and the email exchange entitled 'Fwd: Appeal' - and denies in part only as to redacted contact information, citing MCL 15.243(1)(a) and describing the withheld material as 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' No fee is quoted. The records produced are exactly the records the request described, and the office answered its own prior denial by producing the migration memos it had previously withheld. — source
• EV-26-34-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-34: The Delta County Denial Form enclosed with the 26-34 response. Request No. 26-34; 'Date Received: 02/10/2026'; 'Date of This Notice: 02/17/2026'. Of the three printed reasons, box 2 -- 'Record Does Not Exist: This item does not exist under the name provided in your request or by another name reasonably known to the County. A certificate that the public record does not exist under the name given is attached.' -- is the one marked. Box 1, 'Exempt from Disclosure', and box 3, 'Redaction', are unmarked, and the blank after 'FOIA Section 13, Subsection ___ (insert number)' is left empty. The form therefore records no exemption and no statutory subsection, and it supplies no description of the records searched. The 'Date Received' field is the second of the three receipt dates the packet carries for a single fax. — source
• EV-26-34-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-34: The office's own IPFone fax notification and the forwarded internal e-mail, both enclosed in the 26-34 packet. The fax notification records a one-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 01:18 PM', with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 01:18:09 PM -05:00'. The request form itself is dated February 9, 2026. At 1:22 p.m. that afternoon the FOIA Coordinator forwarded the requester's date-range clarification to the county administrator, the prosecutor and two staff members under the subject 'Fwd: Two FOIAs sent', writing: 'The email below is the clarification of the date range for the two FOIA's we just received today by way of fax. Tracy has not yet assigned a number. They just came in.' The same coordinator's February 17 letter states that the request was 'received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026'. Counted from February 9 and excluding the weekend and the February 16, 2026 state holiday, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235 is February 17, so the response is timely on every reading of the receipt date; the defect is in the office's record of its own receipt, not in the timing. — source
• EV-26-34-response (official statement), FOIA 26-34: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-34, the request for the aggregate number of criminal cases resolved through diversion programmes in 2022-2025. The disposition is 'DENIED'. The denial is definitional rather than exemption-based: the letter reasons that 'diversion programs' is 'traditionally a program only referring to juvenile diversion program administered by Probate Courts, as outlined in the Juvenile Diversion Act, Act 13 of 1988, MCL 722.821 et al.', that such records 'are maintained by the Probate Court of the juvenile's respective county', that the office 'does not maintain records related to individuals placed within a juvenile diversion program', and that 'There are no other diversion programs within Delta County.' On that premise the coordinator certifies that 'after a search for records and to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief the public record requested ... does not exist within the records of the public body under the name nor any other name reasonably known to the public body.' The certification asserts that a search occurred but names no system searched, no custodian consulted and no date range applied, and the letter cites no subsection of MCL 15.243. It closes by inviting 'clarifying information related to this request' and offering that 'we will review the matter anew' -- a genuine avenue for reconsideration that also shifts the burden of vocabulary to the requester. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee waiver the request invoked: it is neither granted, denied nor declared moot. Its opening sentence states that the request was 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026', although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own fax log and forwarded e-mail fix receipt on February 9. — source
• EV-26-35-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The office's own IPFone fax notification, addressed to its administrative fax mailbox and enclosed in the response packet. It records a two-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 02:06 PM,' with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 02:05:51 PM -05:00' and a page count of two. This is the document that fixes the start of the clock: the request reached the office on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 2:05 p.m. Eastern, not on February 17 as the response letter states. Counted from February 9, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235(1) is February 17, because February 16, 2026 is a state holiday and is not counted; the response therefore lands on the last available day and is timely, but only because of the holiday. Counted from the letter's own stated receipt date the response would be same-day, which is why the discrepancy matters: the office's account of its own timeliness is contradicted by the record it enclosed. — source
• EV-26-35-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The request form dated February 9, 2026. It asks for the aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted in January 2026, expressly excluding 'minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters,' and states that the requester 'seeks only an aggregate numerical total' and that 'No case files, names, identifiers, or personally identifiable information are requested.' It adds that the request 'does not require the creation of a new public record' and that it 'includes any existing reports, summaries, database query results, or electronic exports' -- so the requester asked for an existing aggregate, not a new compilation, and the office's 85-minute hand count was a method of its own choosing. The form invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks the office to identify itself if it believes the request requires a fee. Its reasonable-basis paragraph describes observing a plea proceeding on 'February 9, 2025,' almost certainly a typographical error for 2026, and the form cites 'five (5) business days as required by MCL 15.235(2)' -- the five-day period is in subsection (1), not (2). The request is narrow, self-limiting and unambiguous on its face. — source
• EV-26-35-response (official statement), FOIA 26-35: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-35, the January 2026 plea-agreement count. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED.' The letter reports that the office's review of District and Circuit Court dockets 'documented the entry of 52 pleas in District or Circuit Court that were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.' It concedes that 'This number includes misdemeanor level traffic tickets, as a differentiation of minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters is too broad to allow for clear differentiation in response' -- so the 52 is an admitted ceiling rather than an exact count of the class the request described, and no partial denial is entered on that ground. It states that 'There does not exist a document or record of an aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted,' and that the compilation 'was done out of a courtesy and effort in transparency,' taking 'approximately 85 minutes.' No fee is quoted. The letter closes by reserving future charges: 'the granting of this request does not mean that future requests will not be subject to a fee estimation.' Two date defects appear on the face of the letter: it describes the request as 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026,' although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own enclosed fax notification records receipt at 2:05:51 p.m. Eastern on February 9; and it says the plea was observed 'on February 9, 2026' in its first sentence and 'On January 9, 2026' five sentences later. The letter is signed by the Chief Prosecuting Attorney and FOIA Coordinator. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-11-02-02 · hash e25757451a697ccb89398543eeb9876ab9dffeb3d4ae8e1c0dad2b45993d6b4b

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-290-response (official statement), FOIA 26-290: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-290, a six-item request about victim-services staffing and grant funding. The letter acknowledges a request 'dated October 25, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on October 26, 2026' and is signed by the FOIA Coordinator. Items 1 through 5 are each described as 'granted' and then withheld in the same paragraph: the records 'will not be provided pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363 (1994)' because they were 'previously provided' in FOIA 25-279, 'sent on or about December 18, 2025.' Item 6 -- whether any victim-services function is performed by a contracted provider rather than an employee -- is not addressed anywhere in the letter. The office asserts that 'no staff titles or position have changed' and that 'the individuals involved in that role has not changed,' and describes the earlier production as including 'CVRP Grant Application and allocation documents from 2024, 2025, and 2026 fiscal years' and quarterly reports. No fee is quoted, no cost estimate is offered, no Notice of Denial form is attached, no subsection of MCL 15.243 is cited, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. The letter does state that the office has eight employees, one of whom is a victim advocate. FOIA 25-279, already documented on this site, contains no responsive documents at all: it 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. The letter also names no page, document or exhibit in the earlier production that answers any of the five items. — source
• EV-26-291-response (official statement), FOIA 26-291: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-291, a six-item follow-up to the privilege assertions made in FOIA 25-195. Items 1 through 3 are 'granted in part, denied in part' and answered with a nine-row, three-column table headed Document Name, Sent on, Author. Every row names the same author, Prosecutor Wickman. The rows are dated out of order -- two 2024 entries sit between 2023 entries -- and carry the office's own misspellings ('Accomodations', 'Conservatin', 'Interium', 'Adminstrator'). The table lists documents that were produced; it states no privilege for any entry, identifies no withheld record, and is not a privilege log. The letter cites 'MCL 15.243(9)' as the attorney-client exemption. Section 15.243 of the Michigan Compiled Laws ends at subsection (4); the attorney-client exemption is MCL 15.243(1)(g). Four paragraphs after asserting privilege, the same letter states that the 25-195 records 'were not deemed privileged as they were provided to the Board of Commissioners not in the Delta County Prosecutor's capacity as civil counsel, but as part of a budget presentation that was done publicly at a Board meeting.' Items 4 and 5 -- the written privilege policy and related correspondence -- are denied as nonexistent. Item 6, the count of records withheld in full and in part, is not addressed. No fee is quoted, no Notice of Denial form is attached, and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. — source
• EV-26-292-response (official statement), FOIA 26-292: October 29, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-292, a request for twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for calendar 2025, asked as a count only with the underlying case-level data expressly excluded. The letter reproduces the requester's 'SCOPE LIMITATIONS -- WHAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT ASK FOR' list, subsections (a) through (f), and then uses subsection (f) against the request: 'Records allowing for the number to be calculated could be located and provided, subject to statutorily necessary redactions and exemptions. However, as you specify in your request under Scope Limitations subsection (f) that is not a portion of your request. Should you wish to clarify your request, the request would be granted.' Subsection (f) was written to say the request did not ask the office to compile, calculate or derive anything -- a cost-saving sentence that the office read as an exclusion of the number itself. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are denied: the aggregate 'Charges on Authorized Felony Case Report' was 'generated through the old case tracking system prior to the Prosecutor's Office losing access' to it, and was 'previously provided to you in FOIA Request 25-94 and 25-195.' Neither production is described anywhere in this archive as containing that report: 25-94 produced three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023, and 25-195 produced two budget memoranda and four Adult Case Tracking reports run on November 30, 2023. Paragraph 4 is denied as nonexistent. No fee is quoted and no estimate is offered, although the letter says the records 'could be located and provided.' No Notice of Denial form is attached and the MCL 15.234 waiver is not mentioned. This is the third time the office has conceded in writing that the underlying data exists while declining the aggregate, after 25-278 and 26-28. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-26-32-appeal-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 25-278 appeal as filed (pages 59-65), together with the 'Fwd: Appeal' email of December 19, 2025. The appeal cites the fee figures of $23,146.66 and $11,573.33, which do not match the $16,533.33 and $6,613.33 printed on the itemization produced in the same file - the appeal and the itemization describe the same work at different totals. The bundle shows the office handling an appeal of its own fee estimate while, in the same production, releasing the memos that explain why the underlying records were lost. — source
• EV-26-32-denial (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-32, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The only reason recorded is reason 3, Redaction, and the only exemption cited is MCL 15.243(1)(a), applied to 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' The bundle reproduces MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. This is the narrowest denial in the archive: it withholds contact information only, names the exemption, and produces every substantive record the request described. — source
• EV-26-32-email-thread (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Eight-page email exchange among the office. On January 3, 2026 Christine Williams proposes that ProsecutorByKarpel's court-form ingestion feature be used to reconstruct the migrated data, writing that it 'may cost additional money but might be much less than what was quoted for manual preparation.' On January 4, 2026 Prosecutor Wickman replies that 'We have not reentered this information because we don't have time,' confirming that the office has chosen not to restore the lost data and has weighed a cheaper technical route against manual preparation. The exchange is the office's own account, in its own words, that the migrated data was not reentered and that a lower-cost reconstruction option was on the table. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-195 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195' (September 15, 2025). It restates the migration account and supplies the third per-file time estimate in the file, alongside the 20-minute figure in the 25-94 memo and the 14-minute figure in the 25-278 itemization. Read together with the February 2026 letters, which used a 5-minute figure, the archive now holds four different per-file estimates - 20, 14 and 5 minutes - for the same reconstruction work, each produced by the same office within eight months. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278' (December 31, 2025) and its attachments, including the 25-278 request as received and the seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization. The response to 25-278 states that there are 'mistakes and issues being found with the migrated information on nearly a weekly basis.' The itemization prices the work at 14 minutes per file: line 1 is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 for $16,533.33, and line 3a is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 for $6,613.33, against a $24.82 hourly wage and a $6.20 charge per quarter hour. The fractional-increment arithmetic repeats the same $4.13 overcharge seen elsewhere in the archive - the form's own round-down rule does not support the printed increment count - and the overcharge appears on two lines, $8.26 on the subtotal. The 14-minute figure here is the middle of three different per-file time estimates for the same reconstruction work. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-94 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94' (June 16, 2025), the central document in the release. It states that 'On June 10, 2024, the Delta County Prosecutor's Office went live with Karpel'; that 'the data did not transition completely, or accurately due to different inputs'; that 'This inconsistent and inaccurate transition was a possibility that we were warned of prior to the implementation'; that 'access to the previous case tracking system or its exact data is no longer available'; and that 'Because the root files are not organized by year (only by name), searching for outcomes by any particular year is not viable.' It prices reconstruction at 20 minutes per file, 105 files per week, over '104 weeks, or 1.87 YEARS,' for $66,648.40. This is the office's own admission that it was warned before implementation, that the transition was incomplete and inaccurate, that the old data is gone, and that the file structure makes year-based retrieval impossible by design. — source
• EV-26-32-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 10:22 a.m. Eastern through IPFone, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for 'Any records discussing how the system migration affects the Prosecutor's Office's ability to respond to FOIA requests,' adds the no-new-record sentence, and invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver. The request is narrow and self-describing: it names the subject, the custodian and the document class, and it does not ask the office to create a record. It is the request whose grant produced the 95-page release in this file. — source
• EV-26-32-response (official statement), FOIA 26-32: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-32, 'Impact of Migration on FOIA Responses.' The request was dated February 6, 2026 and received February 9, 2026; the letter is dated February 12, 2026, the third business day, inside MCL 15.235(1) with no extension taken. The disposition is 'GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The office produces five named records - the email exchange entitled 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195,' and the email exchange entitled 'Fwd: Appeal' - and denies in part only as to redacted contact information, citing MCL 15.243(1)(a) and describing the withheld material as 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' No fee is quoted. The records produced are exactly the records the request described, and the office answered its own prior denial by producing the migration memos it had previously withheld. — source
• EV-26-35-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The office's own IPFone fax notification, addressed to its administrative fax mailbox and enclosed in the response packet. It records a two-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 02:06 PM,' with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 02:05:51 PM -05:00' and a page count of two. This is the document that fixes the start of the clock: the request reached the office on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 2:05 p.m. Eastern, not on February 17 as the response letter states. Counted from February 9, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235(1) is February 17, because February 16, 2026 is a state holiday and is not counted; the response therefore lands on the last available day and is timely, but only because of the holiday. Counted from the letter's own stated receipt date the response would be same-day, which is why the discrepancy matters: the office's account of its own timeliness is contradicted by the record it enclosed. — source
• EV-26-35-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The request form dated February 9, 2026. It asks for the aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted in January 2026, expressly excluding 'minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters,' and states that the requester 'seeks only an aggregate numerical total' and that 'No case files, names, identifiers, or personally identifiable information are requested.' It adds that the request 'does not require the creation of a new public record' and that it 'includes any existing reports, summaries, database query results, or electronic exports' -- so the requester asked for an existing aggregate, not a new compilation, and the office's 85-minute hand count was a method of its own choosing. The form invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks the office to identify itself if it believes the request requires a fee. Its reasonable-basis paragraph describes observing a plea proceeding on 'February 9, 2025,' almost certainly a typographical error for 2026, and the form cites 'five (5) business days as required by MCL 15.235(2)' -- the five-day period is in subsection (1), not (2). The request is narrow, self-limiting and unambiguous on its face. — source
• EV-26-35-response (official statement), FOIA 26-35: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-35, the January 2026 plea-agreement count. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED.' The letter reports that the office's review of District and Circuit Court dockets 'documented the entry of 52 pleas in District or Circuit Court that were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.' It concedes that 'This number includes misdemeanor level traffic tickets, as a differentiation of minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters is too broad to allow for clear differentiation in response' -- so the 52 is an admitted ceiling rather than an exact count of the class the request described, and no partial denial is entered on that ground. It states that 'There does not exist a document or record of an aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted,' and that the compilation 'was done out of a courtesy and effort in transparency,' taking 'approximately 85 minutes.' No fee is quoted. The letter closes by reserving future charges: 'the granting of this request does not mean that future requests will not be subject to a fee estimation.' Two date defects appear on the face of the letter: it describes the request as 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026,' although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own enclosed fax notification records receipt at 2:05:51 p.m. Eastern on February 9; and it says the plea was observed 'on February 9, 2026' in its first sentence and 'On January 9, 2026' five sentences later. The letter is signed by the Chief Prosecuting Attorney and FOIA Coordinator. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-11-02-01 · hash 22d7eb23d28a1a89b077686e989b9155c24760f7400eeb52448bd5370edc2b7e

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-26-32-appeal-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 25-278 appeal as filed (pages 59-65), together with the 'Fwd: Appeal' email of December 19, 2025. The appeal cites the fee figures of $23,146.66 and $11,573.33, which do not match the $16,533.33 and $6,613.33 printed on the itemization produced in the same file - the appeal and the itemization describe the same work at different totals. The bundle shows the office handling an appeal of its own fee estimate while, in the same production, releasing the memos that explain why the underlying records were lost. — source
• EV-26-32-denial (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-32, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The only reason recorded is reason 3, Redaction, and the only exemption cited is MCL 15.243(1)(a), applied to 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' The bundle reproduces MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. This is the narrowest denial in the archive: it withholds contact information only, names the exemption, and produces every substantive record the request described. — source
• EV-26-32-email-thread (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Eight-page email exchange among the office. On January 3, 2026 Christine Williams proposes that ProsecutorByKarpel's court-form ingestion feature be used to reconstruct the migrated data, writing that it 'may cost additional money but might be much less than what was quoted for manual preparation.' On January 4, 2026 Prosecutor Wickman replies that 'We have not reentered this information because we don't have time,' confirming that the office has chosen not to restore the lost data and has weighed a cheaper technical route against manual preparation. The exchange is the office's own account, in its own words, that the migrated data was not reentered and that a lower-cost reconstruction option was on the table. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-195 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195' (September 15, 2025). It restates the migration account and supplies the third per-file time estimate in the file, alongside the 20-minute figure in the 25-94 memo and the 14-minute figure in the 25-278 itemization. Read together with the February 2026 letters, which used a 5-minute figure, the archive now holds four different per-file estimates - 20, 14 and 5 minutes - for the same reconstruction work, each produced by the same office within eight months. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278' (December 31, 2025) and its attachments, including the 25-278 request as received and the seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization. The response to 25-278 states that there are 'mistakes and issues being found with the migrated information on nearly a weekly basis.' The itemization prices the work at 14 minutes per file: line 1 is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 for $16,533.33, and line 3a is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 for $6,613.33, against a $24.82 hourly wage and a $6.20 charge per quarter hour. The fractional-increment arithmetic repeats the same $4.13 overcharge seen elsewhere in the archive - the form's own round-down rule does not support the printed increment count - and the overcharge appears on two lines, $8.26 on the subtotal. The 14-minute figure here is the middle of three different per-file time estimates for the same reconstruction work. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-94 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94' (June 16, 2025), the central document in the release. It states that 'On June 10, 2024, the Delta County Prosecutor's Office went live with Karpel'; that 'the data did not transition completely, or accurately due to different inputs'; that 'This inconsistent and inaccurate transition was a possibility that we were warned of prior to the implementation'; that 'access to the previous case tracking system or its exact data is no longer available'; and that 'Because the root files are not organized by year (only by name), searching for outcomes by any particular year is not viable.' It prices reconstruction at 20 minutes per file, 105 files per week, over '104 weeks, or 1.87 YEARS,' for $66,648.40. This is the office's own admission that it was warned before implementation, that the transition was incomplete and inaccurate, that the old data is gone, and that the file structure makes year-based retrieval impossible by design. — source
• EV-26-32-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 10:22 a.m. Eastern through IPFone, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for 'Any records discussing how the system migration affects the Prosecutor's Office's ability to respond to FOIA requests,' adds the no-new-record sentence, and invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver. The request is narrow and self-describing: it names the subject, the custodian and the document class, and it does not ask the office to create a record. It is the request whose grant produced the 95-page release in this file. — source
• EV-26-32-response (official statement), FOIA 26-32: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-32, 'Impact of Migration on FOIA Responses.' The request was dated February 6, 2026 and received February 9, 2026; the letter is dated February 12, 2026, the third business day, inside MCL 15.235(1) with no extension taken. The disposition is 'GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The office produces five named records - the email exchange entitled 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195,' and the email exchange entitled 'Fwd: Appeal' - and denies in part only as to redacted contact information, citing MCL 15.243(1)(a) and describing the withheld material as 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' No fee is quoted. The records produced are exactly the records the request described, and the office answered its own prior denial by producing the migration memos it had previously withheld. — source
• EV-26-35-fax (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The office's own IPFone fax notification, addressed to its administrative fax mailbox and enclosed in the response packet. It records a two-page transmission received 'Mon, Feb 09, 2026 02:06 PM,' with an internal receive time of '2.9.2026 02:05:51 PM -05:00' and a page count of two. This is the document that fixes the start of the clock: the request reached the office on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 2:05 p.m. Eastern, not on February 17 as the response letter states. Counted from February 9, the fifth business day under MCL 15.235(1) is February 17, because February 16, 2026 is a state holiday and is not counted; the response therefore lands on the last available day and is timely, but only because of the holiday. Counted from the letter's own stated receipt date the response would be same-day, which is why the discrepancy matters: the office's account of its own timeliness is contradicted by the record it enclosed. — source
• EV-26-35-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-35: The request form dated February 9, 2026. It asks for the aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted in January 2026, expressly excluding 'minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters,' and states that the requester 'seeks only an aggregate numerical total' and that 'No case files, names, identifiers, or personally identifiable information are requested.' It adds that the request 'does not require the creation of a new public record' and that it 'includes any existing reports, summaries, database query results, or electronic exports' -- so the requester asked for an existing aggregate, not a new compilation, and the office's 85-minute hand count was a method of its own choosing. The form invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks the office to identify itself if it believes the request requires a fee. Its reasonable-basis paragraph describes observing a plea proceeding on 'February 9, 2025,' almost certainly a typographical error for 2026, and the form cites 'five (5) business days as required by MCL 15.235(2)' -- the five-day period is in subsection (1), not (2). The request is narrow, self-limiting and unambiguous on its face. — source
• EV-26-35-response (official statement), FOIA 26-35: February 17, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-35, the January 2026 plea-agreement count. The disposition is 'Your request is GRANTED.' The letter reports that the office's review of District and Circuit Court dockets 'documented the entry of 52 pleas in District or Circuit Court that were entered pursuant to a plea agreement.' It concedes that 'This number includes misdemeanor level traffic tickets, as a differentiation of minor traffic infractions and small ticket matters is too broad to allow for clear differentiation in response' -- so the 52 is an admitted ceiling rather than an exact count of the class the request described, and no partial denial is entered on that ground. It states that 'There does not exist a document or record of an aggregate numerical total of plea agreements entered into and accepted,' and that the compilation 'was done out of a courtesy and effort in transparency,' taking 'approximately 85 minutes.' No fee is quoted. The letter closes by reserving future charges: 'the granting of this request does not mean that future requests will not be subject to a fee estimation.' Two date defects appear on the face of the letter: it describes the request as 'dated February 10, 2026, and received by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office on February 17, 2026,' although the request is dated February 9 and the office's own enclosed fax notification records receipt at 2:05:51 p.m. Eastern on February 9; and it says the plea was observed 'on February 9, 2026' in its first sentence and 'On January 9, 2026' five sentences later. The letter is signed by the Chief Prosecuting Attorney and FOIA Coordinator. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-08 · hash 0a22e920bb13b23048b1831db79d7b94c977769a2a80a898375f66383fb494c7

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-26-32-appeal-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 25-278 appeal as filed (pages 59-65), together with the 'Fwd: Appeal' email of December 19, 2025. The appeal cites the fee figures of $23,146.66 and $11,573.33, which do not match the $16,533.33 and $6,613.33 printed on the itemization produced in the same file - the appeal and the itemization describe the same work at different totals. The bundle shows the office handling an appeal of its own fee estimate while, in the same production, releasing the memos that explain why the underlying records were lost. — source
• EV-26-32-denial (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-32, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The only reason recorded is reason 3, Redaction, and the only exemption cited is MCL 15.243(1)(a), applied to 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' The bundle reproduces MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. This is the narrowest denial in the archive: it withholds contact information only, names the exemption, and produces every substantive record the request described. — source
• EV-26-32-email-thread (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Eight-page email exchange among the office. On January 3, 2026 Christine Williams proposes that ProsecutorByKarpel's court-form ingestion feature be used to reconstruct the migrated data, writing that it 'may cost additional money but might be much less than what was quoted for manual preparation.' On January 4, 2026 Prosecutor Wickman replies that 'We have not reentered this information because we don't have time,' confirming that the office has chosen not to restore the lost data and has weighed a cheaper technical route against manual preparation. The exchange is the office's own account, in its own words, that the migrated data was not reentered and that a lower-cost reconstruction option was on the table. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-195 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195' (September 15, 2025). It restates the migration account and supplies the third per-file time estimate in the file, alongside the 20-minute figure in the 25-94 memo and the 14-minute figure in the 25-278 itemization. Read together with the February 2026 letters, which used a 5-minute figure, the archive now holds four different per-file estimates - 20, 14 and 5 minutes - for the same reconstruction work, each produced by the same office within eight months. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-278 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278' (December 31, 2025) and its attachments, including the 25-278 request as received and the seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization. The response to 25-278 states that there are 'mistakes and issues being found with the migrated information on nearly a weekly basis.' The itemization prices the work at 14 minutes per file: line 1 is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 for $16,533.33, and line 3a is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 for $6,613.33, against a $24.82 hourly wage and a $6.20 charge per quarter hour. The fractional-increment arithmetic repeats the same $4.13 overcharge seen elsewhere in the archive - the form's own round-down rule does not support the printed increment count - and the overcharge appears on two lines, $8.26 on the subtotal. The 14-minute figure here is the middle of three different per-file time estimates for the same reconstruction work. — source
• EV-26-32-memo-25-94 (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: The 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94' (June 16, 2025), the central document in the release. It states that 'On June 10, 2024, the Delta County Prosecutor's Office went live with Karpel'; that 'the data did not transition completely, or accurately due to different inputs'; that 'This inconsistent and inaccurate transition was a possibility that we were warned of prior to the implementation'; that 'access to the previous case tracking system or its exact data is no longer available'; and that 'Because the root files are not organized by year (only by name), searching for outcomes by any particular year is not viable.' It prices reconstruction at 20 minutes per file, 105 files per week, over '104 weeks, or 1.87 YEARS,' for $66,648.40. This is the office's own admission that it was warned before implementation, that the transition was incomplete and inaccurate, that the old data is gone, and that the file structure makes year-based retrieval impossible by design. — source
• EV-26-32-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-32: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 10:22 a.m. Eastern through IPFone, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for 'Any records discussing how the system migration affects the Prosecutor's Office's ability to respond to FOIA requests,' adds the no-new-record sentence, and invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver. The request is narrow and self-describing: it names the subject, the custodian and the document class, and it does not ask the office to create a record. It is the request whose grant produced the 95-page release in this file. — source
• EV-26-32-response (official statement), FOIA 26-32: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-32, 'Impact of Migration on FOIA Responses.' The request was dated February 6, 2026 and received February 9, 2026; the letter is dated February 12, 2026, the third business day, inside MCL 15.235(1) with no extension taken. The disposition is 'GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.' The office produces five named records - the email exchange entitled 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-278,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-94,' the 'Memo regarding Appeal of FOIA 25-195,' and the email exchange entitled 'Fwd: Appeal' - and denies in part only as to redacted contact information, citing MCL 15.243(1)(a) and describing the withheld material as 'contact information to include address phone numbers email addresses.' No fee is quoted. The records produced are exactly the records the request described, and the office answered its own prior denial by producing the migration memos it had previously withheld. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-07 · hash 6e37603abc5ca198e07b8c4c66b0e29043556850ae2ecd8ed2952da92ecf9ce5

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-28-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-28, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal a Denial of Records. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. With the denial bundle's general appeal form, 26-28 supplies both appeal routes in a single packet - the first file in the archive to do so, one day before 26-29 repeated the pattern. The Request No. field on the excess-fee form is a mark that WickmanWatch cannot resolve and does not characterize. The packet does not state which route governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-28-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: approximately 800 files at 3 minutes each, 2,400 minutes, 160 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $992.00. Line 3a: 800 files at 2 minutes each, 1,600 minutes, printed as 106.66 increments at $6.20, for $661.33. Subtotal $1,653.33, deposit $826.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,600 minutes is 106.67 increments, which rounds down to 106 increments and $657.20, not the $661.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge, the same $4.13 as FOIA 26-29. Correct subtotal at the form's own rule is $1,649.20. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $826.665 is truncated to $826.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank for the sixth consecutive file. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-28-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-28: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:01:46 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office,' states 'aggregate numerical data only,' and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver and asks for a detailed written itemization before processing. It is the first of six statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-28, 26-29, 26-30, 26-21, 26-22 and 26-20 - and the only one of them whose letter supplies a worked example of a case open across two decades. — source
• EV-26-28-response (official statement), FOIA 26-28: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-28 (total number of criminal cases pending or in progress at the time the current prosecutor assumed office). The office reports that 'no existing record, document, or aggregate statistical data exists' providing the total, certifies nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and DENIES that item. It then states that 'the underlying data could be obtained' and GRANTS that, subject to separation of exempt from nonexempt information, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision of MCL 15.234(2). The volume premise is an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with 800 used 'as a baseline.' The letter supplies a worked example - a defendant arraigned at the end of 2025 on a case authorized in 2001 - to explain why a case can sit open across decades. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026, the fifth business day, inside MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. This is the request that FOIA 26-29's letter cites by number as the source of its definition of 'inherited'; the definition is corroborated by this letter's operative text. — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-06 · hash 09ab2d097288c90d974f0d4d1f74f779aa5c28195967ebf9242f0ee25f3a98cf

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-29-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-29, recording the request as received 02/06/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. The bundle includes a reproduction of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-appeal (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Three pages: a blank 'FOIA Appeal Form - To Appeal an Excess Fee,' the text of MCL 15.240a, and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. This is the first packet in the archive to supply the excess-fee appeal form and the MCL 15.240a text alongside a fee estimate - the sibling packets omitted both. The packet does not state which appeal route, the general appeal under MCL 15.240 or the excess-fee appeal under MCL 15.240a, governs which part of a response that both denies a record and quotes a fee. — source
• EV-26-29-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to the February 12, 2026 letter. Line 1: 500 files at 3 minutes each, 1,500 minutes, 100 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $620.00. Line 3a: 500 files at 2 minutes each, 1,000 minutes, printed as 66.66 increments at $6.20, for $413.33. Subtotal $1,033.33, deposit $516.66 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. The form states that all partial time increments must be rounded down; at that rule 1,000 minutes is 66.67 increments, which rounds down to 66 increments and $409.20, not the $413.33 printed - a $4.13 overcharge. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The deposit of $516.665 is truncated to $516.66. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. The itemization's 270-day estimate contradicts the letter's 180-day estimate, both dated the same day. — source
• EV-26-29-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-29: Requester's February 5, 2026 letter, faxed at 4:03:33 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 6, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and adds: 'If no such calculation is maintained, please indicate that no responsive record exists. This request does not require creation of a new record.' It is one of five statistical requests faxed within a week by the same requester - 26-20, 26-21, 26-22, 26-29 and 26-30. — source
• EV-26-29-response (official statement), FOIA 26-29: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-29 (total number of inherited criminal cases that ultimately resulted in conviction). The office reports that a review of existing records 'cannot located any record' providing the total; interprets 'inherited' as cases pending or in progress when the prosecutor assumed office, attributing that reading to 'a corresponding FOIA Request, specifically FOIA Request 26-28'; and offers additional searches only if the requester clarifies afterward. It then GRANTS the underlying data subject to separation of exempt material and prices it, invoking the unreasonably-high-cost provision. The pricing baseline is 500 files, derived from an estimate of 'approximately 800 to 1000 files open at any one time,' with the final amount to be adjusted to the actual responsive count. The letter states the office will need approximately 180 days from receipt of the deposit. Received February 6, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the fifth business day, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-30-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Five pages: the Notice of Denial for Request 26-30, recording the request as received 02/09/2026 and the notice date as 02/12/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100; two reproductions of MCL 15.240; a blank FOIA Appeal Form; and the county's FOIA written-policies notice. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked. No excess-fee appeal form is included, because no fee was quoted. — source
• EV-26-30-densmore (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: The Densmore prior-production rationale, tested against the archive's own record of the two prior releases. Densmore v. Department of Corrections, 203 Mich.App. 363, 512 N.W.2d 72 (1994), holds that a duplicate FOIA request need not be answered absent an explanation of why the first copy did not suffice. The letter cites it as '203 Mich 363 (1994),' omitting the 'App.' division. Six of the eight named documents match what FOIA 25-195 produced - two budget memos dated 07/17/2024 and 09/10/2023, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with a run date of 11/30/2023. The two 21st Century Reports covering January 2024 and January through July 2025 do not appear in FOIA 25-94 (three Warrants Authorized by Agency reports for 2021 through 2023) or in 25-195. The Delta County Board of Commissioners' June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records that the office denied item 1 for 2024 and 2025 and confirmed production only for 2021 through 2023 - so those periods were being withheld in mid-2025, not produced. — source
• EV-26-30-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-30: Requester's February 6, 2026 letter, faxed at 9:49:14 a.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 9, 2026. The operative text asks for the 'total number of criminal cases initiated by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and states that if no such calculation is maintained the office should indicate that no responsive record exists. The packet also contains duplicate fax notifications, a duplicate cover sheet, and a duplicate request page. — source
• EV-26-30-response (official statement), FOIA 26-30: February 12, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-30 (total number of criminal cases initiated from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025). The letter identifies eight responsive documents by title and date range - two 21st Century Reports, a Warrants Authorized by Agency report, two budget request memos with attachments, and three Charges on Authorized case reports - then declines to reproduce them: 'these documents have already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-94 and FOIA Request 25-195. As you have not provided any justification or need for the documents to be reproduced to you, the public body will not be producing theses records for a second time pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994).' Separately it finds that no document exists detailing the aggregate total, cites MCL 15.233(5), issues a certificate of nonexistence, and then states that the aggregate total 'can be gleaned from the previously provided documents.' Footnote 1 resolves the election date to January 1, 2023. No fee is quoted. Received February 9, 2026 and answered February 12, 2026 - the third business day. — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-05 · hash 54da9481f198442d840865f7e4e52fec4768e18383cf02b0bb0d44f689f65195

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-21-amended (official statement), FOIA 26-21: Two-page amended response letter dated February 12, 2026. A line-by-line comparison with the February 5 letter shows that only three elements differ: the date, the caption, and the files-per-year figure, which changes from 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' to 'approximately 1,100 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025).' The disposition, the MCL 15.233(5) and 15.233(1) citations, the certificate of nonexistence, the $9,548.00 fee, the $4,774.00 deposit, the 270-day estimate, both footnotes, the appeal paragraph, and the two typographical errors ('great than fifty dollars' and 'the responsible, nonexempt public records') are identical in both versions. The amendment does not state what was corrected, why the earlier figure was wrong, or what the correct figure is based on. Michigan's FOIA provides no amended-response mechanism, so which letter is the operative determination is unresolved. — source
• EV-26-21-amendment-arithmetic (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Cross-check of the original letter's volume figure against the itemization's own rates. At 1,500 files per year across three years, 3 minutes per file is 900 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 ($5,580.00) and 4 minutes per file is 1,200 increments ($7,440.00), for a subtotal of $13,020.00 and a deposit of $6,510.00. The February 5 letter quoted $9,548.00 and $4,774.00 - a $3,472.00 discrepancy against its own attachment. The February 12 amendment changed the stated volume to 1,100 files per year, which matches the invoice, and left the fee unchanged. A fee the office justified by volume did not move when volume fell 27 percent. The amendment thus resolved the discrepancy toward the invoice, not the invoice toward the volume, and did so without acknowledging that the earlier figure was wrong. — source
• EV-26-21-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Notice of Denial form for Request 26-21, recording the request as received 02/02/2026 and the notice date as 02/05/2026, with contact Emily DeSalvo at 906-789-5100. The form lists the county's pre-printed reasons; WickmanWatch does not assert which boxes are checked, because the marks are a pre-printed artifact. Item 2 of the form is coherent with the letter - the record does not exist in the form requested - but item 3 anticipates a redaction that never occurred, because no records were produced. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-26-21-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization attached to both the February 5 and February 12 letters. Line 1: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 3 minutes each, 660 quarter-hour increments at $6.20, for $4,092.00. Line 3a: review of approximately 1,100 files per year at 4 minutes each (two documents per file), 880 increments at $6.20, for $5,456.00. Subtotal $9,548.00, deposit $4,774.00 at 50 percent, delivery estimate 270 days, amount paid $0.00. Hourly wage with fringe printed as $24.82 and charge per quarter hour as $6.20; $24.82 divided by four is $6.205, which rounds to $6.21. The fee-waiver section, with two checkboxes and an 'After Waiver: $____' line, is blank. Footnote 2 states that the itemization 'is identical to the FOIA Fee Itemization related to FOIA Request 25-21' and that a deposit on either 25-21 or 25-22 'would be considered applicable to both' - naming request numbers that do not appear in this archive. The 270-day estimate is unexplained and the deposit-abandonment date under MCL 15.234(13) is not stated. — source
• EV-26-21-request (documented fact), FOIA 26-21: Requester's January 30, 2026 letter, faxed at 12:29:53 p.m. Eastern, with IPFone fax notifications, and received February 2, 2026. The operative text asks for 'the total number of criminal convictions secured by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from the prosecutor's election date through December 31, 2025,' states that the request 'seeks only aggregate numerical data' and that 'no individual case information is requested,' invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and asks for an itemized estimate before any work. It is one of three statistical requests - 26-20, 26-21 and 26-22 - faxed the same day by the same requester. — source
• EV-26-21-response (official statement), FOIA 26-21: February 5, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-21 (total count of criminal convictions, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025), headed GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The office certifies that no document containing the aggregate total exists, cites MCL 15.233(5) for the no-duty-to-create provision, issues a certificate of nonexistence under MCL 15.233(1), and offers to provide the total 'in the form of the underlying information that would allow for your own compiling.' Footnote 1 resolves the election-date ambiguity: 'Prosecutor Wickman was elected in November 2022 General Election, and was sworn in for her term starting on January 1, 2023.' The letter states that the office processes 'approximately 1,500 files per year (2023, 2024, 2025)' - a figure the February 12 amendment later changes to 1,100. The response was issued on the third business day after the deemed receipt of February 2, 2026, inside the five-business-day window of MCL 15.235(1), with no extension taken. — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-04 · hash 7d1e98fb728c9e40d0ad889d10bf4c75f98389d102ecef6a87e7bd0359bfe483

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-279-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-279, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, delivered by fax. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, credit card information' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' deferring the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not funded. The bundle includes two reproductions of MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and the text of MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the marks are identical to those on the 25-277 and 25-278 forms and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-279-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Nine pages containing the Notice to Extend Response Time for FOIA Request, dated 12-4-2025, stating that an extension was filed on December 3, 2025 with Reason 1 checked - the need to search for, collect or review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' - and noting that only one extension may be taken per request. The notice is actually included in the packet, unlike the 25-277 response, but the three itemizations issued two weeks later state production clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days, which is a different and much longer measure than the ten-business-day extension the notice describes. — source
• EV-25-279-fee-itemizations (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Twenty-one pages, three separate Detailed Cost Itemizations dated December 18, 2025, each with its own subtotal, deposit and production clock. Attachment A (pages 54-60), vacancy, hiring and turnover files: 12-15 files at 20 minutes is 16 quarter-hour increments at $10.13 = $162.08, plus a redaction line stating 24 increments at $6.20 which should be $148.80 but is printed as $14.88; subtotal $176.96, deposit $88.48, 30 days. Attachment B (pages 61-67), caseload: 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file is 4,000 increments at $6.20 = $24,800.00, plus a redaction line stating 1,600 increments at $6.20 which should be $9,920.00 but is printed as $9,632.00; subtotal $34,432.00, deposit $17,216.00, 180 days. Attachment C (pages 68-74), office-wide monthly and quarterly expenditure reports: 96 records at one minute each, printed as $64.83 where six whole quarter-hour increments at $10.13 is $60.78; subtotal $64.83, deposit $32.41, 30 days. The three subtotals sum to $34,673.79 and the three deposits to $17,336.89. The Public Interest waiver section is blank on all three. The premise has drifted: 25-277 and 25-278 both said '4 YEARS requested' and priced 4,000 files; this one says '6 YEARS requested' and prices 6,000 files at the same per-file rate, though the request asked for five fiscal years plus the current year. — source
• EV-25-279-grant-without-enclosure (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Cross-check of the 74-page packet against the letter's own dispositions. The letter uses the language of production - 'please find the following documents' - and marks dozens of sub-items GRANTED, yet the packet contains no responsive documents of any kind: no budget page, no position classification list, no training certificate, no grant award letter. The only enclosures are the denial form, two statute excerpts, a blank appeal form, a policy notice and three invoices. The same packet contains three arithmetic errors, none reconciled: Attachment A prints $14.88 where its own stated rate yields $148.80, Attachment B prints $9,632.00 where its own stated rate yields $9,920.00, and Attachment C prints $64.83 where six whole increments yield $60.78. The premise of the largest invoice also moved without explanation from '4 YEARS requested' in the two requests filed the same evening to '6 YEARS requested' here. — source
• EV-25-279-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-279: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 8:16:12 p.m., four pages, to 906-789-5197, and received November 26, 2025. Five numbered categories - staffing level data, attorney caseload data, training and professional development data, budget and expenditure data, and grant funding data - each with enumerated sub-items, a time period of FY 2020 through FY 2024 plus the current year-to-date and a prior fiscal year baseline, a required format (Excel or CSV for data sets, PDF for reports) and a required organization. It states public-interest justifications for fiscal accountability, resource management, performance evaluation, transparency and comparative analysis, invokes the MCL 15.234 fee waiver, and contains a section titled 'If the Office Claims This Request Is Burdensome' in which the requester expressly offers to split the request into separate FOIAs. The office took an extension for volume and never answered the offer. — source
• EV-25-279-response (official statement), FOIA 25-279: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-279 (personnel and resource data, FY 2020 through the current year), forty-eight pages, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all five categories sub-item by sub-item and marks dozens of them GRANTED outright: position classification lists back to 2009, the staffing report, part-time and full-time breakdowns, contract staff, training records by employee, conference attendance, annual budgets, grant applications, awards, expenditure and compliance reports, fourteen grant-funded job descriptions, salary ranges, turnover, headcount and the attorney-to-support ratio. It then encloses none of them. Headcount is stated as 'currently 8 employees' - '3 attorneys, 4 clerks/support staff, and 1 victim advocate' - with 'approximately 12-15 vacancies in time frame requested,' which the office says are held by Delta County Administration 'in the vault' and would require substantial work, pointing to deltacountymi.gov/board-agendas/. The letter volunteers a six-year prose hierarchy of attorney positions, itemizes training records by person, lists thirteen travel and training authorizations with invoices, and states that 'the State Bar of Michigan does not have a CLE requirement for attorneys,' that the office 'is too small to provide for specializations' and that 'all attorneys are cross-trained.' Internal training materials are refused because they were 'previously provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-203' and 'no good cause has been established'; audit reports are refused because they were 'previously provided pursuant to FOIA Request 25-196' and 'no good cause' was shown, and the letter concedes that 'the audits from Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025 have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist.' After certifying that demographic records do not exist, it volunteers that the current demographics of the office are '25 to 50 year old, Caucasian, non-Hispanic, females.' — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-03 · hash 94e17a9994e56cbc33cd09972709a69440a7fa654e52a9a379870169dc634661

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-278-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Notice of Denial form for Request 25-278, recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025. The Reason 3 (Redaction) text describes redaction of 'defendant names, victim or witness names, addresses, dates of births, telephone numbers, etc' and states that 'any determination of the exact exemptions would be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form defers the exemption analysis to a review the requester has not yet funded. The packet includes an MCL 15.240 excerpt and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but again omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. WickmanWatch does not assert which reason boxes are checked: the checkbox marks are identical to those on the 25-277 form and appear to be a pre-printed artifact. — source
• EV-25-278-double-invoice (analysis), FOIA 25-278: Two itemizations were issued the same day, to the same requester, for what the office's own footnotes describe as one review: 25-277 at $34,720.00 (deposit $17,360.00) and 25-278 at $23,146.66 (deposit $11,573.33), a combined demand of $57,866.66 and $28,933.33 in deposits. Every line of the 25-278 itemization concedes that paying the 25-277 estimate 'would capture' the 25-278 documents and make the 25-278 estimate 'moot,' yet both were issued. The 25-278 estimate also prices a 4,000-file manual review (roughly 1,000 cases per year over four years) to answer a question whose one granted sub-item was answered by reading the internal calendar and totaled 62 trials. The same 1,000-cases-per-year figure has now appeared in six responses - 25-215, 25-244, 25-254, 26-22, 25-277 and 25-278 - without ever being derived from a count. — source
• EV-25-278-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025. Labor to locate: 4,000 files at ten minutes each is 2,666.66 quarter-hour increments at $6.20 = $16,533.33. Labor to redact: 4,000 files at four minutes each is 1,066.66 increments at $6.20 = $6,613.33. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are all $0.00. Subtotal $23,146.66; 50 percent deposit $11,573.33; 180-day estimate; hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The arithmetic reconciles exactly, as it did in 25-277. The Public Interest waiver section is again left entirely blank. Every line carries a footnote conceding that if the 25-277 estimate is paid, 'the documents in this request would be captured in that review, making this estimate moot.' The same bundle includes the Notice to Extend Response Time dated December 3, 2025. — source
• EV-25-278-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: Requester's November 25, 2025 letter, faxed that evening at 6:01:58 p.m. and received November 26, 2025. Six numbered items in three groups - A. Plea Offer Data and Tracking; B. Sentencing Ranges, Offers and Policies; C. Internal Analytics and Performance Metrics - plus an unnumbered Note on System Migration Delays with three sub-bullets. It asks for native electronic production with Excel or CSV preferred, invokes the MCL 15.234(1) fee waiver, invokes MCL 15.243(4) segregability, certifies a non-commercial public-interest purpose, and carries a certificate of service naming Emily DeSalvo. The requester is the same person who filed 25-277 the same day. — source
• EV-25-278-response (official statement), FOIA 25-278: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-278 (plea-bargaining practices, January 1, 2022 to present), signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo. It answers all six numbered items and the unnumbered migration note item by item rather than as a single denial. Item A1 is granted in part and denied in part: the office certifies that no record tracks the number of plea offers made, resolved by plea, or the acceptance and rejection rates, while conceding that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available and in the possession of the Prosecutor's Office.' The third sub-bullet - the number of cases that proceed to trial - is granted outright from 'a review of the internal calendar of the Prosecutor's Office.' Item A2 is denied for want of any export or data field; the office states that plea details are 'not entered directly into ProsecutorbyKarpel' and exist only in correspondence and plea forms sent to defense counsel. Item B3 is denied as an identical repeat of 25-178. Item B4 is granted, producing SCAO Form MC 414 and the People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template. Items C5 and C6 are denied. The letter states that an extension was filed December 3, 2025, and unlike 25-277 the extension notice is actually included in the packet. It also volunteers a detailed migration account: the transition completed in June 2024, the problem is field mismatch rather than lost data, ProsecutorbyKarpel has more fields than the old system, and errors in migrated records are still being found 'on nearly a weekly basis.' — source
• EV-25-278-trial-table (documented fact), FOIA 25-278: The responsive data actually produced: trial counts by court and year for January 1, 2022 through December 18, 2025. District Court 1, 6, 5, 6; Probate Court 10, 9, 3, 3; Circuit Court 7, 4, 4, 4. Totals 18, 19, 12, 13 - 62 trials over four years. The letter defines the count to include any jury trial in District, Circuit or Probate Court, any abuse and neglect proceeding categorized as a trial, and any entry of a plea as charged on the day of trial, and notes the figures run through December 18, 2025. It says the numbers came from 'a review of the internal calendar.' The table is legible and usable, which is a genuine improvement over the certificates of nonexistence that answered comparable requests. — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source

Snapshot 2026-10-30-02 · hash 1a727110118ec3217d1c2e58e85610d86e3808213bc8833eacbc11fa4674e138

Comparable with the previous snapshot (v1.2.0). Same methodology version.

Evidence this snapshot rested on

• EV-25-118-25-118-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Extension notice, June 20, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Cost itemization, June 25, 2025 — source
• EV-25-118-25-118-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-118: Request letter, June 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-board-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Board of Commissioners Appeal Decision (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Extension notice for request 25-129 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked, found misfiled inside the FOIA 25-139 response packet. The extended date is handwritten and not reliably legible in the released copy, so no date is recorded. Reproduced with the 25-129 record, where it belongs. — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-129-25-129-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-129: Response Letter, Notice of Denial, Certificate and Itemization (redacted) — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011270-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011270 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-judgment-2024-0000011271-FH-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 judgment 2024 0000011271 FH redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 request redacted — source
• EV-25-130-25-130-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: 25 130 response redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-cane-information-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 cane information redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-complaint-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray complaint redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-murray-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 murray nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 request redacted — source
• EV-25-131-25-131-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: 25 131 response redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-nolle-prosequi-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 nolle prosequi redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 request redacted — source
• EV-25-132-25-132-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: 25 132 response redacted — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-21st-century-report-table1 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: 21st Century Report, Table 1 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; no reason beyond the coordinator's determination that the records do not exist — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-cost-itemization-2025-09-02 (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Detailed Cost Itemization, September 2, 2025 — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-denial-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Notice of Denial, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Response Letter, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-133-25-133-supplemental-denial-2025-09-02-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-133: Supplemental Notice of Denial, September 2, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension that preceded the certificate of nonexistence — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-134-25-134-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-134: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-appeal-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Appeal Form (as enclosed) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not mention the eight case files produced with the same response — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-case-documents-as-released (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Produced Case Documents (as released) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-extension-notice-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-notice-of-denial-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-135-25-135-response-2025-07-17-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-135: Response Letter, July 17, 2025 (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, August 20, 2025 — denial upheld; letter does not address the volume-based extension or identify an exemption — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-extension-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-136-25-136-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-136: Response Letter and Certificate of Nonexistence (redacted) — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-137. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, does not mention the volume-based extension, does not describe any search, and identifies no exemption. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Extension notice for request 25-137 dated 7-2-25, reason box 1 checked (voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records), response date extended to 7/18/25 with an estimated time frame of 07/18/2025. The extension is asserted eight days before the office certified that no responsive record exists. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 8:56 a.m. Eastern, asking for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-137-25-137-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-137: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-137 in full: after a search, and to the best of the coordinator's knowledge and belief, the requested public records do not exist. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced. The office's quotation of the request omits the preferred-format paragraph, the $50 ceiling and the MCL 15.244 demand. The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4). — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Board of Commissioners letter dated August 20, 2025 upholding the denial of FOIA 25-139. Appeal received at the regular meeting of August 5, 2025; denial upheld at a special meeting on August 18, 2025. The letter restates the coordinator's conclusion, describes no search, identifies no exemption, and does not address the missing extension notice. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Request dated June 27, 2025, faxed 9:02 a.m. Eastern, asking for records of 2024 asset forfeiture actions in which the related criminal case was later dismissed or ended without a conviction, with six data fields per case; offers to accept a summary table, spreadsheet or internal report; sets a $50 cost ceiling with an advance estimate under MCL 15.234; asks for exemptions to be cited and segregable portions released under MCL 15.244. — source
• EV-25-139-25-139-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-139: Response dated July 17, 2025 denying FOIA 25-139 in full on a certificate of nonexistence. No exemption cited, no fee quoted, no page produced, no search described. The letter does not mention the circuit-court docket on which a forfeiture action would appear, and does not invoke MCL 15.233(4). The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139; the extension form in it names request 25-129. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, September 3, 2025 — denial upheld; letter says records were “deemed to not exist or was already provided” without specifying which — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Notice of Denial dated 08/08/2025 with 'All' of the request checked as denied, reason box 1 'Exempt from Disclosure' checked with the 25-135 cross-reference inserted and the exemption subsection line blank, reason box 2 'Record Does Not Exist' also checked, and reason box 3 'Redaction' unchecked. — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Request dated August 2, 2025 asking for 2024 bench-trial and jury-trial counts with a guilty/not-guilty breakdown, offering to accept an internal report, trial log, performance summary or CMS extract, setting a $50 ceiling with an advance estimate demand, and asking for forwarding under MCL 15.235(3), the exemption under MCL 15.243 and segregation under MCL 15.244(1). — source
• EV-25-180-25-180-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-180: Letter dated August 8, 2025 denying the request and each of its three subparts on a certificate of nonexistence, and stating three times that 'the records of the underlying, raw data has already been provided to you in response to FOIA Request 25-135,' citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994). No exemption is named and no page of a responsive record is produced. — source
• EV-25-194-25-194-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-194: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-194', states the request was received August 14, 2025, cites thirteen exemptions including MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(g), (1)(h), (1)(b)(i)-(vi), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(f), (1)(s)(i)-(x), (1)(u), (1)(w) and (1)(z), and quantifies the volume as approximately 14,400 email conversations, 50 text message conversations and 1,700 case files. The letter is internally inconsistent about its own disposition: one page states the content is 'DENIED to the extent that the content ... is exempt' while another states 'Your request is GRANTED, subject to any statutory exemptions.' It does not address the requester's written offer to accept a log first, and it never corrects or explains the contradiction. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-195: The September 3, 2025 response letter, captioned 'Re: FOIA Request #25-195', states the request was received August 14, 2025 and grants it in part and denies it in part. It produces ten documents totaling 71 pages, withholds '[r]eports provided to or prepared for county officials' on attorney-client privilege because the office also serves as county civil counsel, and denies performance reviews, employee evaluations and operational assessments as nonexistent with a certificate of nonexistence. The privilege withholding is stated as a category and is not reconciled with the two budget memos in the same release that are addressed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the office does not explain the inconsistency. — source
• EV-25-195-25-195-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-195: The 71-page release contains ten documents: the FY 2024-25 budget memo dated July 17, 2024 and its draft, the FY 2023-24 budget memo dated September 10, 2023 and its draft, attachments including MDOC statistical report excerpts, a Clare County vacancy announcement, Dickinson, Leelanau, Houghton and Mecosta job descriptions and the PACC Annual Prosecution Survey 2022, and four Adult Case Tracking reports with run dates of 11/30/2023 - Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report and Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023, a second felony report for 01/01/2023-12/31/2023, and Warrants Authorized by Agency for 01/01/2023-11/30/2023. The four reports were generated by the office's pre-2024 system and were still retrievable in 2025, which is direct evidence that historical records survived the transition. The release does not explain what was migrated, where pre-2024 records are held, or what search produced these files. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The Notice to Extend Response Time for Request No. 25-196 checks reason box 1, the need to search for, collect or appropriately examine and review 'a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records', extends the response date to 9/3/25 within the statutory maximum of 40 business days, and names Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100, as the contact. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2018-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, 122 pages. This is the county's own annual financial statement, produced even though the fiscal year falls outside the requested January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024 window. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2019-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, 146 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. It contains the prosecuting attorney General Fund budget-and-actual line. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2020-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, 156 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2021-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, 174 pages. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-fy2023-audit (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: County of Delta, Michigan - Basic Financial Statements with Supplemental Information, fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, 136 pages, with a PDF creation date of August 29, 2025 - five days before the September 3, 2025 response. A county-wide financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office. Its presence alongside the absence of fiscal years 2022 and 2024, with no cover letter accounting for the gap, is the internal inconsistency this record documents. — source
• EV-25-196-25-196-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-196: The August 13, 2025 request asks for any and all internal or external audits, audit reports, audit findings or related evaluations conducted on or for the Delta County Prosecutor's Office from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2024, expressly including financial, operational and compliance audits, audits by internal staff, contractors or state and federal agencies, correspondence transmitting results, and response plans, corrective action reports and follow-up evaluations, with drafts and 'not for public release' material included. It states that a bare 'no such records exist' answer will not be accepted without a written certification describing the search scope, custodians consulted and databases and file systems reviewed, asks for segregable non-exempt portions under MCL 15.244, and asks for an itemized estimate if the cost would exceed $20. — source
• EV-25-197-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-197, date received 08/14/2025, dated 09/03/2025, signed by the FOIA coordinator. It checks 'Part,' box 1 (exempt, Section 13(1)(h), MCR 9.126) and box 2 (record does not exist), and leaves box 3 (redaction) unchecked. No field maps either box to one of the five categories, no page count is given, and no withheld record is described by type, date or nature. Contact named as Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. — source
• EV-25-197-extension (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 8-19-2025, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It records the request as received 8/13/25, checks the fax box and reason box 1 ('voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records'), and extends the response date to 9/3/25 with an estimated time frame of 09/03/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' lines are blank, so the notice states the reason but not what had to be searched. Deemed receipt was August 14; the fifth business day was August 21; the ten-business-day extension ran to September 5; the response issued September 3. — source
• EV-25-197-fax-record (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Fax transmission records showing two sends on August 13, 2025, at 12:00:48 p.m. and 12:02:29 p.m., and a county date stamp of 08-13-2025 8:59 a.m. on the first page. Under MCL 15.235(1) a faxed request is not received until one business day after transmission, so the office's August 14 receipt date is correct. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Ninety-four pages of Kobasic v Delta County and Lauren Wickman, No. 2:20-cv-00113-RJJ-MV: the First Amended Complaint with exhibits (ECF 5, filed 08/03/20), the response in opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 18, filed 09/21/20) and the summary-judgment motion (ECF 45, filed 09/28/21). ECF 18 is paginated 'Page 29 of 30' and page 30 is absent from the packet, a gap the office did not flag. — source
• EV-25-197-kobasic-settlement (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Four-page Release and Settlement Agreement in Kobasic, signed and notarized March 16, 2022, stating consideration of $60,000.00, discharging Turbo from every euthanasia order through February 16, 2022, stating that it is not an admission of liability, and stipulating to set aside the preliminary injunction. The complaint's paragraphs 24 and 25 allege a December 2019 letter to the Board of Commissioners but give two different dates for it; the letter itself was not produced. — source
• EV-25-197-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Request faxed August 13, 2025, asking for all complaints, grievances and formal allegations against the office since January 1, 2019, with the resolution records. The cover note states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, asks for an estimate before processing above $20, demands segregation under MCL 15.244, and states that a 'no records' answer will not be accepted without a certification describing the systems searched, the custodians consulted, and the search terms and date ranges. Four numbered conditions follow the five categories. — source
• EV-25-197-response (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Response letter dated September 3, 2025, signed by Prosecutor Lauren M. Wickman, acknowledging the request as dated August 13 and received August 14. It grants the first two categories and produces eight federal-court filings from Kobasic v Delta County and Wickman and Roberts v Doe; denies internal grievances and Board of Commissioners complaints on certificates of nonexistence; and denies oversight-body and State Bar records under MCR 9.126 and MCL 15.243(1)(h) without saying whether any responsive records exist. It quotes no fee and requires no deposit, so the MCL 15.234 waiver paragraph is never answered. The letter lists eight documents, but the packet contains a ninth (ECF 18) it does not list. — source
• EV-25-197-roberts-filings (documented fact), FOIA 25-197: Sixty-nine pages of Roberts v Jon Doe Delta County Prosecutor, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00023-GJQ-MV: the complaint, the First Amended Complaint (ECF 25, filed 05/17/19), the response in opposition to the motion to amend (ECF 34, filed 06/11/19), the opinion (ECF 40, filed 08/19/19) holding Wickman entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and the trooper to qualified immunity, and the order and judgment (ECF 41) dismissing all claims with prejudice. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The 27-page response packet: the September 8, 2025 determination letter, a seven-page detailed cost itemization ($2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit), the Notice of Denial citing MCL 15.243(1)(a), the appeal form, the FOIA policy page, the Notice to Extend Response Time, and the original August 16, 2025 request. Shows the same communications request granted, re-granted and certified nonexistent in one letter, and the February 2025 file denied as already provided in FOIA 25-171. — source
• EV-25-199-25-199-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: The eight pages actually produced: the 94th District Court felony complaint and plea worksheet in People v. Colton Troy Brunette (No. 21-25000669-01), the February 19, 2025 Facebook post, the August 15, 2025 press release correcting the WZMQ/Channel 19 story, its marked draft, and the February 18 and 19, 2025 press releases. The complaint charges ketamine possession with no quantity alleged; the release states 1.7 grams. — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Appeal form and statutory excerpt (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Notice to Extend Response Time (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-fax-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Fax transmission record (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Request letter and fax cover (redacted) — source
• EV-25-200-25-200-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-200: Response letter and system inventory (redacted) — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-contract-and-invoices (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: ProsecutorByKarpel contract and invoices — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Request letter, August 18, 2025 — source
• EV-25-201-25-201-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-201: Response, denial form, and extension notice — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-denial-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Extension notice (received 8/18/25, notice 8/19/25, extended to 9/8/25), Notice of Denial checking box 3 Redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(iii) rather than box 2 Nonexistent, MCL 15.240 excerpt, appeal form and county FOIA policy page — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Determination letter, September 8, 2025 (redacted): granted in part and denied in part, certificate of nonexistence for RFP/bid/purchase order, grant conditioned on a fee described as itemized in an attachment that is not present, no dollar figure stated anywhere — source
• EV-25-202-25-202-responsive-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-202: Thirteen pages of produced emails: October 4 2022 announcement of vendor demonstrations, March 8 2023 Wickman email forwarding the three-vendor cost comparison to the county, March 10 2023 vote result of 52 of 66 for Karpel at 78.78 percent — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-fee-itemizations-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Fourteen pages containing two separate itemizations. For 25-215: 1,066.67 quarter-hour increments to locate and 1,066.67 again to redact at $6.21 per quarter hour, an hourly wage of $24.82 with fringe, $6,624 on each side, a $13,248 subtotal, a $6,624 deposit and a 180-day estimate. For 25-137: 266.67 locate and 266.67 redact increments at the same rate, a $3,312 subtotal and a $1,656 deposit, presented as a fresh estimate in further response to a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal. Copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing are all $0. Both the $20 indigence discount and the $20 nonprofit discount boxes are unmarked on both forms. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Notice of Denial of FOIA Request for 25-215, date received 09/09/2025, date of notice 09/15/2025, with boxes 1 (Exempt), 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and 3 (Redaction) all marked at once; the MCL 15.240 excerpt; the county FOIA appeal form; and the county's FOIA written policies page. The redaction description names names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, criminal identification numbers, docket numbers and case numbers. Contact Emily DeSalvo, 906-789-5100. The form does not say which reason applies to which part of the three-part answer. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Five pages: the Zimbra fax-receipt notices showing the request arrived September 9, 2025 at 2:56 p.m., the original August 9, 2025 request with its statement of public interest, and the requester's Exhibit A. The request asks for records, reports, data or summaries documenting average or median case processing times for 2020 through 2023; a definition of case processing time; any statistics or reports maintained internally or for external reporting; electronic copies where available; a certificate of nonexistence if applicable; an advance estimate if charges exceed $20; and a waiver of all fees under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Four-page determination letter dated September 15, 2025, signed by Lauren M. Wickman. It gives one request three dispositions: 'records, reports, ... or summaries' documenting average or median case processing times are denied as nonexistent with a certificate; 'statistics, summaries, or reports' maintained internally or for external reporting are denied as nonexistent with a second certificate; and 'data maintained by the Delta County Prosecutor's Office that document average or median case processing times' is granted subject to MCL 15.243(1)(a) and a fee. It explains the gap by saying the period is 'before the adoption of ProsecutorbyKarpel' and that dockets and calendars from 2020-2023 must be reviewed, roughly 1,000 files a year at five documents per file. It requires a 50 percent deposit and estimates 180 days from receipt of the deposit. It argues that warrant authorization is court staff's task, that arrest and scheduling are outside the office's hands, and that 'case processing time is not a fundamental measure of prosecutorial efficiency.' It lists seven State Court Administrative Office publications produced instead and suggests the request be sent to the 94th District Court or 47th Circuit Court. A footnote acknowledges the August 9 request date is 'believed to be a typo or oversight' and that receipt was September 9, 2025. — source
• EV-25-215-25-215-responsive-court-data (documented fact), FOIA 25-215: Thirty pages produced with the response, all State Court Administrative Office material rather than the office's own data: Michigan Interactive Court Data Dashboard clearance-rate screens for the 94th District Court (2019-2024: 104, 82, 110, 119, 102 and 106 percent) and the 47th Circuit Court felony caseload (2019-2024: 78, 93, 104, 121, 99 and 98 percent); a Case Age dashboard for the 47th Circuit; Administrative Order 2011-3 as amended; and the Michigan Courts 'Case Management for Trial Courts' guidance. Not one page measures the Prosecutor's Office's own time from charging decision to resolution. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-denial-and-appeal-forms-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Notice of Denial for request 25-234, dated 10/08/2025, received by email and fax, together with two signed certificates of nonexistence and a blank FOIA appeal form. The certificates are specific rather than conclusory: they state that evidence seized by the Delta County Sheriff's Office was immediately turned over to UPSET, so the prosecutor's office holds no separate chain-of-custody cover sheets and no transmittal or return correspondence with the laboratory. The appeal notice names the chairperson of the Delta County Board of Commissioners and judicial review in Delta County Circuit Court, and states the statutory damages exposure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-law-and-policy-excerpts-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Enclosures: two copies of the MCL 15.240 excerpt on appeals and remedies, and the county's published FOIA policy page directing requesters to www.deltacountymi.gov/foia, 310 Ludington Street Suite 222, Escanaba MI 49829, telephone 906-789-5100. The policy page is a public-facing document the office supplies with responses, which is a point in its favor on procedural disclosure. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-request-and-receipt-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: The October 1, 2025 request and its fax receipt, showing transmission at 5:20 p.m. Eastern to the county fax line, plus a two-message email exchange on October 2, 2025 in which a county employee wrote that the requester's email address had been left off the form letter and asked whether the response should be emailed, and the requester confirmed it should. The exchange is a documented instance of the office initiating a clarification rather than treating the omission as a defect. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Determination letter dated October 8, 2025, signed by the Prosecuting Attorney as FOIA Coordinator, answering a request received October 1, 2025 - seven calendar days, five business days. It grants part 1 and encloses four Michigan State Police Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, certifies parts 2 and 3 nonexistent under MCL 15.235(5)(b), and quotes no fee. Two documentary defects appear on the face of the letter: it labels both the March 4, 2024 report and the March 12, 2024 report 'Record Number 2', and it never lists Record No. 1, which is stamped 'Record No. 1' on its own face. The letter is silent on the MCL 15.234 fee-waiver request. — source
• EV-25-234-25-234-responsive-lab-reports (documented fact), FOIA 25-234: Eleven pages, four MSP Forensic Laboratory reports under case MQ 24-101, released without redaction. Record No. 1 (March 4, 2024) covers the January 31, 2024 trash pull, Agency Item #14, UPT 19-24 Supplement 1, and reports cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner, naming suspects James Joseph Johnson and Corey Allen Way. Record No. 2 (March 12, 2024) is the latent-print ACE-V examination of the same item. Records No. 3 and No. 4 (February 3 and February 6, 2025) cover the traffic stop, DCSO Report 24-813, UPT 19-24 Supplement 4, Agency Items #18 and #20, and report cocaine, with Record No. 4 quantifying 26.4 grams. No report lists the Northtown Crown Da'Bar or the apartment above it as the source of any tested item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice of Denial accompanying the October 30, 2025 letter, partially denying part one of the request. The exemption line carries the same erroneous 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' string that appears in the letter, and no description of separated material is given beyond the general exemption list. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Notice to Extend Response Time, dated October 16, 2025, issued three business days after the October 13 receipt date and inside the original five-business-day period. It states a reason and an extended response date of November 3, 2025, ten business days beyond the October 20, 2025 deadline. The response issued October 30, 2025, four days before the extended date. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for any list, memo or database of officers with sustained Brady/Giglio findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), and narrows itself away from ongoing investigative material. The fax header reads 10.10.2025 06:13:14 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily Desalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-239 it grants nine items in part one and twelve documents in part two, and answers part three by describing a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list. The denial paragraph cites 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)', a subsection that does not exist, and the same string reappears as 'MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix)'; it also cites MCL 15.243(1)(d) as 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507' without explanation. The MCL 15.244(1) segregation demand is not addressed item by item. — source
• EV-25-239-25-239-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-239: 137-page responsive packet produced at no charge. It contains a December 28, 2017 Delta County Prosecutor Brady/Giglio disclosure letter template signed by Jessica E. Pelto and a second signed by Lauren M. Wickman, both addressed to Lt. Greg Cunningham at the MSP Gladstone Post; an MSP investigation (Incident 080-0000002-24) into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, closing 'Open pending review at the Delta County PA Office'; an MSP internal-affairs packet for a trooper (PSS-683-23, settlement D-MSPTA-215-23) with a ten-day suspension split five served and five held in abeyance to January 11, 2026; a May 13, 2024 MSP email stating that 'the order for a memo referenced in the Written Reprimand was rescinded, so one was never created'; and an unlisted Brady/Giglio Compliance Form at page 21. Two of the nine items the letter says were granted, both dated 01/10/2024, cannot be matched to any page in the packet. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-appeal-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Denial Appeal Form enclosed with the October 30, 2025 response and pre-filled with Request No. 25-240. It states the appeal route to the county board under MCL 15.240 and the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. No appeal filing or appeal decision appears in the record. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-240. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Record Does Not Exist,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The exemption line lists MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w), and the separated material is described in categories -- names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers, and crime-victim-rights information -- but no volume or page count is given and no search is described. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Notice to Extend Response Time dated 10-16-25, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, issued inside the original five-business-day period. It checks the 'voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records' reason. Five business days from the acknowledged October 13 receipt ran to October 20; the single ten-business-day extension ran to November 3, and the response issued October 30, four days inside that ceiling. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-240, dated 10/30/2025. It states an hourly rate of $24.82 with fringe, converted to $6.21 per fifteen-minute increment; 3,000 minutes of labor to locate (200 increments, $1,242.00); 1,500 minutes of labor to separate exempt material (100 increments, $621.00); zero copying, contract labor, duplication and mailing; a $1,863.00 subtotal; and a 50 percent good-faith deposit of $931.50, with a 90-day production estimate from receipt of the deposit. The arithmetic is internally correct. The 'Waiver: Public Interest' section recites the MCL 15.234 standard and offers two boxes, 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by,' and both are blank. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, one of seven filed that day (25-239 through 25-245), asking for use-of-force and officer-involved-incident logs, referral forms, review memos, written policies, and correspondence with law enforcement, MCOLES, or the Attorney General, 2020 to present. It states a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), a five-day response demand under MCL 15.235(2), a segregation demand under MCL 15.244(1), a demand for the total pages withheld or redacted, and a request for electronic delivery in PDF. The Zimbra fax receipt reads 10.10.2025 08:50:02 -04:00. — source
• EV-25-240-25-240-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-240: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering all seven October 10 requests in one document. For 25-240 it grants part one in part (only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect), denies parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence, and encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. It cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) under MCL 780.758, and (1)(w) -- all real provisions -- but gives no page count for withheld material despite the express request, and never answers the MCL 15.234(1) fee-waiver paragraph. It states the requests were 'received October 13, 2025,' while the county's own forms record 10/10/2025. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-denial-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Notice of Denial dated 10/30/2025 for Request No. 25-241, date received 10/10/2025, transmitted by fax. It checks 'Part of your request for records has been denied,' 'Exempt from Disclosure,' 'Record Does Not Exist' and 'Redaction' on the same request. The redaction-basis line names MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(s)(ix), (1)(b)(iii) and (1)(d), and the separated material is described in categories - names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, criminal identification numbers and information related to crime-victim rights. The (1)(s)(ix) citation appears on the form but not in the response letter, and no page count for the separated material is given. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization for Request No. 25-241, dated 10/30/2025. Line 1, labor to locate, reads 2,800 quarter-hour increments at $6.21 against a stated 42,000 minutes of search time, or $17,388.00. Line 3a, labor to redact in-house, reads 100 increments at $6.21, or $621.00. Lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 are zero. The line items sum to $18,009.00, but the printed 'Subtotal Fees' line reads $1,863.00 and the required 50 percent deposit is $931.50 - a $16,146.00 gap on the face of the county's own form. The subtotal reconciles only if line 1 were 200 increments ($1,242.00) rather than the 2,800 the form prints. The form also states an hourly wage of $48.82 with fringe while billing $6.21 per quarter hour, which is $24.84 an hour. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes under 'Waiver: Public Interest' are both blank, as are the indigence and nonprofit sections, and no written waiver determination appears in the packet. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: Request letter dated October 10, 2025, faxed, captioned 'FOIA Request - Charging and Declination Records for Law Enforcement Personnel (2020-Present)'. Four parts: (1) declination memoranda and charging-review summaries for 2020-present cases in which a law enforcement officer was a subject or suspect and no charges issued; (2) internal spreadsheets, logs or lists tracking warrant requests denied, returned or rejected for insufficiency; (3) policies or training on charging decisions where the subject is an officer, including written criteria for 'insufficient evidence,' 'no probable cause' and 'conflict of interest'; (4) communications with the Sheriff's Office, Escanaba PD, Gladstone PD, Michigan State Police or the Attorney General about officer declinations. It limits itself to final, closed records, invokes MCL 15.244(1) segregation, demands a written statement of any exemption subsection with a page count, requests electronic PDF delivery, asks for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1), and asks for a response within five business days under MCL 15.235(2) or a written ten-day extension notice. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-241: Response letter dated October 30, 2025, signed by FOIA Coordinator Emily DeSalvo, answering requests 25-239 through 25-245 in one document and acknowledging the October 10 requests as received October 13, with an extension filed October 16. For 25-241: part one granted in part and denied in part, producing the Petition for Special Prosecutor in 84-1384-22, the September 2022 email exchange, the September 26, 2022 memo in 84-1384-22 and the May 20, 2024 memo in 84-717-24, redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii) 'as no arrest or criminal charges resulted from either incident,' and (1)(d) under MCL 780.758; part two denied as to any internal spreadsheet, log or list and as to any underlying record in which an officer is the named suspect, both certified nonexistent, and granted as to underlying records in which an officer is not the named suspect but priced at $1,863.00 with a 50 percent deposit and a 90-day estimate; part three granted four conflict-of-interest documents and denied the 'insufficient evidence' and 'no probable cause' criteria as nonexistent; part four granted in full. It encloses a Notice of Denial, a seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization, a denial appeal form and a fee appeal form. — source
• EV-25-241-25-241-responsive-documents-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-241: 58-page responsive packet. It contains the Petition for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor dated September 11, 2022 and signed by Lauren Wickman, petitioning the Attorney General under MCL 49.160(1) over a Wells Township incident and stating in paragraph 8 that the office 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'; the September 2022 email chain in which the Attorney General's Danielle Hagaman-Clark wrote on September 15, 2022 that she did not see a conflict and PACC relayed on September 19, 2022 that the request was denied so the county could keep the case; the September 26, 2022 declination memo to Trooper Leinonen in MSP Incident 84-1384-22; the May 20, 2024 declination memo to Trooper Polley in MSP Incident 84-717-24 stating that the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship' and the prosecutor 'did not feel an additional determination was necessary'; the PAAM Best Practices recommendation on conflicts and special prosecutors approved February 10, 2017; the PACC Special Prosecution Assignment process flowchart; the SPA checklist; and the November 2015 PACC Conflict of Interest Manual. Names are redacted throughout but the substance of the petition, the emails and both memos is legible. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-denial-form-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The Notice of Denial for Request No. 25-244 records a date received of 10/10/2025 and a notice date of 10/30/2025, checks the partial-denial box, and cites MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b)(iii), (1)(d) 'exempted pursuant to MCL 423.507', and 'MCL 15.234(1)(s)(ix)' - a provision that does not exist in the fee section of FOIA. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-extension-form-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Notice to Extend Response Time is dated October 16, 2025, checks the voluminous-records reason, and states an estimated time frame of 10/30/2025. The 'Specifically, the County must:' explanation lines are blank, so the notice never says what had to be searched. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-fee-itemization-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The Detailed Cost Itemization charges $49,680.00 to locate (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21) and $24,840.00 to redact (4,000 increments), with copying, contract redaction, duplication and mailing all at $0, a $74,520.00 subtotal, a 180-day estimate, a $24.82 hourly wage, a 0% fringe multiplier and a 50% deposit of $37,260.00. The 'All fees are waived' and 'All fees are reduced by' boxes are blank, the 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line is blank, and the indigence and nonprofit boxes are unchecked. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 25-244: The October 30, 2025 letter certifies that no annual summary, no log of reports returned for correction, no Brady/Giglio/credibility field or export, and no ProsecutorByKarpel statistical dashboard exist; grants thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents in full at no charge; produces ten Proof of Service slips dated January 2024 to September 2025; and concedes that many records were not transferred from the old system and that Karpel was not used in some years. — source
• EV-25-244-25-244-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 25-244: The 120-page packet contains ten Proof of Service slips served by email between January 9, 2024 and September 19, 2025, seven of which concern the same Trooper Immel Giglio material re-served to four defense attorneys in eight cases, plus the thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full and the PACC's May 2021 prosecutor's guide. — source
• EV-25-254-arithmetic (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The printed increment counts treat minutes as quarter hours. The form's own handwritten basis of 800 cases at 10 minutes is 8,000 minutes, which is 533 quarter-hour increments, not the 8,000 printed. Its 6,000 files at 5 minutes is 30,000 minutes, which is 2,000 increments, not the 4,000 printed. Priced at the form's own $6.21, the stated method yields $15,729.93 against a printed $74,520.00. Using the letter's own 200 cases per year across the four years the request covers yields $4,967.40. The printed total is exactly fifteen times that figure, the arithmetic signature of a minutes-as-quarter-hours units error. — source
• EV-25-254-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with all three reason boxes checked at once: Reason 1 (Exempt - 'records previously disclosed pursuant to FOIA Request 25-244'), Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction). No reason is mapped to a paragraph. The Reason 1 explanation is a second, independent denial of paragraph one on a prior-production theory, citing Densmore v Department of Corrections, 203 Mich 363 (1994) as printed. — source
• EV-25-254-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated November 20, 2025: labor to locate $49,680.00 (8,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.21), labor to redact $24,840.00 (4,000 increments at $6.21), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $74,520.00, 50 percent deposit $37,260.00, 180-day estimate. The handwritten justification reads 'reviewing approximately 1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)', '800 cases @ 10 minutes' and '1000 in each request/year for 6 years.' The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-254-produced-records (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Paragraph two was granted in full and two records were produced at no charge: a five-question Brady/Giglio Compliance Form for each law-enforcement witness, and the February 15, 2024 memo 'Continuing Duty to Disclose Exculpatory and Favorable Impeachment Evidence' sent to six agencies, with an 'Addendum Regarding Law Enforcement Witnesses' listing eight categories of officer-credibility information the agencies are asked to report. The addendum states that such information 'will not automatically be disclosed to the court or to the defense' and will be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney or Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. — source
• EV-25-254-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-254: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, 'FOIA Request - Brady and Giglio Disclosure Logs and Templates (2022-Present)', faxed that day at 10:48:14 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel reports or exports referencing Brady, Giglio or officer-credibility fields, with a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-254-response (official statement), FOIA 25-254: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-254: paragraph one denied on a certificate of nonexistence and again on a prior-production theory citing FOIA 25-244 and Densmore; paragraph two granted in full with two records produced; paragraph three denied as to ProsecutorByKarpel reports and exports on a second certificate, and granted as to 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter states roughly 200 cases per year, ten minutes per case to locate and five minutes per case to redact, a 50 percent deposit and 90 days from receipt of deposit. — source
• EV-25-254-reused-itemization (analysis), FOIA 25-254: The 25-254 itemization is numerically identical to the itemization issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 - the day before the 25-254 request was faxed. Same $24.82 hourly rate, same $6.21 quarter-hour charge, same 8,000 and 4,000 increments, same $49,680.00 and $24,840.00 lines, same $74,520.00 subtotal, same $37,260.00 deposit, same 180-day estimate, and the same handwritten '1000 to 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' justification - which is false for a request covering 2022 to present. The two requests cover different subject matter and different periods. — source
• EV-25-257-certificate-versus-availability (analysis), FOIA 25-257: The letter certifies three times that no plea or disposition data exists, then states in the next paragraph that 'the data related to the request is available.' The same letter prices a manual read of roughly 6,000 case files while never describing a search of the ProsecutorByKarpel case-management system the request named. — source
• EV-25-257-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Notice of Denial form dated November 20, 2025 with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at the same time, the redaction description reading 'victim names/information,' and no statement of which reason governs which part of the answer. — source
• EV-25-257-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate $12,400.00 (2,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $7,440.00 (1,200 increments at $6.20), copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00, subtotal $19,840.00, 50 percent deposit $9,920.00, 180-day estimate. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank: no waiver box, no reduction box, and an empty 'Subtotal Fees After Waiver' line. — source
• EV-25-257-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-257: Requester's October 31, 2025 letter, faxed that day at 11:27:03 AM and received November 3, 2025: three numbered paragraphs for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data, an express instruction not to deny in full if some years were unavailable, electronic delivery, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234, and notice if any fee would exceed $50. — source
• EV-25-257-response (official statement), FOIA 25-257: November 20, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-257: all three paragraphs of a request for 2020-2024 plea and disposition data denied on certificates of nonexistence, in the same letter that states 'the data related to the request is available'; a manual reconstruction of roughly 1,200 files a year at five minutes to locate and three minutes to redact; $19,840.00 quoted, a $9,920.00 deposit, and a 180-day estimate. — source
• EV-25-277-denial-form (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Notice of Denial form recording the request as received 11/26/2025 and the notice date as 12/18/2025, with Reason 2 (Record Does Not Exist) and Reason 3 (Redaction) checked at once. Reason 3 on the county's form describes a redaction 'to be conducted after payment of the fee estimate,' so the form certifies both that the record does not exist and that a redaction of it will be performed later. Reason 1, which would cover the prior-production argument the letter makes, is not checked. The packet includes MCL 15.240 and a blank FOIA Appeal Form but omits the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a. — source
• EV-25-277-fee-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization dated December 18, 2025: labor to locate $24,800.00 (4,000 quarter-hour increments at $6.20), labor to redact $9,920.00 (1,600 increments at $6.20), lines 2, 3b, 4 and 5 all $0.00, subtotal $34,720.00, 50 percent deposit $17,360.00, 180-day estimate, hourly rate $24.82 with fringe. The handwritten method is 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' at ten minutes per file to locate and four minutes per file to redact. Unlike FOIA 25-254, the increments do follow from that method. The Public Interest waiver section is left entirely blank. — source
• EV-25-277-request (documented fact), FOIA 25-277: Requester's November 24, 2025 letter, faxed November 25, 2025 at 5:52:24 p.m. and clarified by a one-page fax at 7:59:42 p.m. the same evening fixing the period at January 2020 to present, received November 26, 2025. Two categories: annual statistical reports, year-end reports and similar summary documents containing prosecutorial data on clearance rates and backlog statistics, and the same class of document as to conviction and acquittal rates. Includes a written public-interest justification, a certification of non-commercial purpose, and a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234. — source
• EV-25-277-response (official statement), FOIA 25-277: December 18, 2025 determination on FOIA 25-277: both categories of annual and year-end statistical reports granted in part. The office certifies that no annual statistical report, year-end report or similar summary document exists, citing MCL 15.233(4) and (5) and Densmore v Department of Corrections, and in the same letter grants 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested' for a fee. The letter asserts that a notice to extend was filed December 3, 2025, a notice not included in the packet, and defines 'clearance rate' and 'backlog,' the latter in five case categories. — source
• EV-25-277-unmeasured-premise (analysis), FOIA 25-277: The estimate multiplies an assumed volume of 'approximately 1000 cases/year' by a per-file time, and the multiplication is correct: 6,000 files at ten minutes is 4,000 increments and at four minutes is 1,600. The premise itself is never documented. The same figure appears in FOIA 25-215, 25-244, 25-254 and 26-22 without a count, query output or docket total behind it. The office's own five-category definition of 'backlog' describes status fields in a case-management system, which sits awkwardly beside a price computed as a manual read of 6,000 files. — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-board-appeal-decision-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Board of Commissioners appeal decision, June 27, 2025 — partial denial upheld; item 1 produced for 2021–2023 and withheld for 2024–2025; items 2–4 withheld in full — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Agency Response and Denial Notice (redacted) — source
• EV-25-94-25-94-warrants-2021-2023-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 25-94: Warrants Authorized by Agency, 2021–2023 (redacted transcription) — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-cost-itemization (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Seven-page Detailed Cost Itemization: labor to locate 40 minutes at $24.82/hour with fringe = $16.53; separating exempt from non-exempt 160-200 pages = $66.13; copying, contract redaction and mailing all $0.00; subtotal $82.66; public-interest waiver section left blank, neither granted nor denied; good-faith deposit 50 percent = $41.33; estimated time frame 30 days. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-karpel-contradiction (analysis), FOIA 26-131: The requester documented an internal contradiction in the office's own fee math: earlier responses put felony filings at roughly 25-30 per month (about 350 a year) while the manual-review justification assumes all 1,500 total files must be reviewed. The April 24, 2026 response answers none of the three Karpel questions and never mentions Karpel. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-request-letter (documented fact), FOIA 26-131: Requester's April 17, 2026 letter, received April 20, 2026: 2025 felony sex-offense cases only, five named document types, existing records only with an express disclaimer of any compilation, query, export or statistical analysis, a fee-waiver request under MCL 15.234(1), and three numbered questions about a Karpel search by case type and authorization date. — source
• EV-26-131-26-131-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-131: April 24, 2026 determination on FOIA 26-131: granted in part and denied in part, approximately 20 felony files, approximately 4-5 responsive documents each, redaction under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 28.214(5) LEIN, $82.66 quoted ($16.53 locate + $66.13 separate), a 50 percent deposit of $41.33, and a 30-day production clock that begins on receipt of the deposit. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-136: April 29, 2026 response to FOIA 26-136, 26-137 and 26-139: three certificates of nonexistence and three notices of denial, with the three fax confirmations showing the requests arriving April 22, 2026. — source
• EV-26-136-26-136-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-136: Sixteen pages released under FOIA 26-136: the buccal-swab warrant and affidavit for Dustin Thomas Aker, the camper-trailer warrant and affidavit, the 2004 Dodge Ram warrant and affidavit from the Manistique Outpost, and the associated returns and tabulations, with the office's own redactions. — source
• EV-26-140-26-140-143-response-redacted (official statement), FOIA 26-140: May 7, 2026 response to FOIA 26-140 through 26-143, received May 1 and answered on the fourth business day. It grants the plea documents in full, grants the laboratory reports and the emails in part under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g), and denies the fingerprint records with a bare certificate of nonexistence. No fee was quoted and no deposit was required. — source
• EV-26-141-26-141-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-141: Four Michigan State Police laboratory reports released under FOIA 26-141, Laboratory No. MQ20-1001. Records 2, 3, 4 and 5 document the sexual assault kit, a likelihood ratio of approximately 20 octillion for Dustin Aker on the vulvar fraction, approximately 500 million for the left-breast item, and two Notices of CODIS Association, the second naming Sydney Ann Horvath. Redacted under MCL 15.243(1)(a). — source
• EV-26-142-26-142-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-142: Four plea documents released in full under FOIA 26-142, whose subject line reads 'Finger Prints' although all sixteen enumerated items are plea records. Aker's two sheets, both dated October 11, 2021, recommend no more and no less than five years on an added Count 5 while dismissing Counts 1 through 4 and file 21-10409-FH, and disagree with each other on whether bond was posted. Horvath's plea sheet records a guilty plea to unlawful imprisonment on January 12, 2022. — source
• EV-26-143-26-143-responsive-documents (documented fact), FOIA 26-143: Four plea-negotiation emails released in part under FOIA 26-143, dated August 12, October 4, November 16 and December 11, 2021. The October 4 Aker thread is largely withheld as work product under MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a) and MCL 15.243(1)(g). The December 11 email records that Horvath was offered unlawful imprisonment and that no promise to recommend Boot Camp was made. — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-fax-and-notices-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Fax Record and Notice Packet (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-20-26-20-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-20: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-itemization-and-fax-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Cost Itemization and Fax Record (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-request-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: FOIA Request (redacted) — source
• EV-26-22-26-22-response-redacted (documented fact), FOIA 26-22: Response Letter and Notice of Denial (redacted) — source
• EV-CW-25-130 (documented fact), FOIA 25-130: Case watch reproducing the UPSET bar-raid file: the charging documents, the co-defendant's separate file, and the office's two incompatible descriptions of the same raid. — source
• EV-CW-25-130-lab (analysis), FOIA 25-130: Section 05 of the 25-130 case watch, added after FOIA 25-234, sets the laboratory file against the earlier response. The same office answered a request for defendant names and dispositions by producing one defendant's judgments and staying silent about the other, then thirteen months later produced four named laboratory reports from the same investigation in seven days at no charge. The heaviest tested quantity is 26.4 grams, a little under one ounce, against the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported; no produced record states four ounces, and no produced report traces to an item seized inside the business. — source
• EV-CW-25-131 (documented fact), FOIA 25-131: Case watch reproducing the 2024 UPSET methamphetamine stop file: one traffic stop, two case numbers, and two denials that describe the same records differently. — source
• EV-CW-25-132 (documented fact), FOIA 25-132: Case watch reproducing the Rapid River nolle prosequi file: three felony counts dismissed in one sentence, three named records, one page produced, and a denial letter citing no subsection. — source
• EV-CW-25-199 (documented fact), FOIA 25-199: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-199: the press releases of 02/18/2025, 02/19/2025 and 08/15/2025, the draft of the 08/15/2025 release, the 94th District Court felony complaint in People v. Colton Troy Brunette, the detailed cost itemization, the Notice of Denial and the Notice to Extend Response Time. It documents that one letter granted, re-granted and then certified nonexistent the same communications request, and that the 1.7-gram figure in the release is absent from the charging complaint. — source
• EV-CW-25-268 (documented fact), FOIA 25-268: Case watch reproducing FOIA 25-268: the citizen complaint form of 07/21/2023, the memos of 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023, MSP Report 80-43-24 and its supplements, the three text-message screenshots, the detailed cost itemization, and eight certifications of nonexistence. — source
• EV-CW-nelson (documented fact): Case watch reproducing the Derec Nelson file and the FOIA correspondence around it, including the partial-denial justification under MCL 15.243(1)(a) and (1)(d) and the missing accident investigator call record certified as nonexistent. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-FOIA (official statement): The county FOIA page publishes the procedures and guidelines, the request page, notice-to-extend and notice-of-denial forms, and two appeal forms. — source
• EV-PUB-COUNTY-PROC (official statement): The county's FOIA Procedures and Guidelines (effective July 1, 2015) describe fee components, a public-interest waiver in the FOIA Coordinator's sole judgment, and first-$20 indigency and nonprofit discounts. — source
• EV-PUB-PROSECUTOR (official statement): The prosecutor's public page gives contact information and staffing but publishes no statistics, reports, datasets or FOIA fee schedule. — source