45 logged updates
Grouped by publication date, newest first. Each entry links to the page it changed.
November 2, 2026
6 changes
New page
FOIA 26-34
- Asked for the number of criminal cases resolved through diversion programmes, 2022–2025
- The office redefined “diversion” as juvenile diversion administered by the Probate Court
- Asserted that “There are no other ‘diversion programs’ within Delta County” without describing a search
- Certified nonexistence and checked box 2 on the Denial Form
- Three different arrival dates for one fax: February 9, February 10 and February 17
- Sibling request 26-35, faxed the same afternoon, was granted in full with a number
New page
FOIA 26-33
- Asked for the total number of deferred prosecution agreements entered, 2022–2025
- Denied the aggregate as a record that “would require the creation of a new record”
- Conceded in the same letter that “the underlying data exists to allow for the calculation”
- Quoted $9,093.33, with a $4,546.66 deposit and a 270-day production estimate
- Charged 586.66 fifteen-minute increments on a form that says to round partial increments down
- Names MCL 771.1, 769.4a, 333.7411 and 762.11 — the statutes its sibling 26-34 says do not apply in Delta County
- Public-interest fee waiver left blank, though the request asked for one under MCL 15.234
New page
FOIA 26-31
- Asked how many times a prosecutor attended a crime scene, 2021 through 2025, “aggregate numerical data only”
- The office answered with a list of eight records and supplied no figure
- Refused to reproduce them under Densmore, because they were “already provided” in FOIA 25-267
- Every dated item on the list falls in 2024; the letter does not say whether the list is complete for the other four years
- Denial Form box 1 checked with the “Section 13, Subsection ___” line left blank
- This archive holds no record of FOIA 25-267 and none of the eight named documents
- Acknowledged February 9, answered February 12 — three business days, inside the statutory period
New page
FOIA 26-292
- Asked for twelve monthly felony-authorization counts for 2025, expressly disclaiming any need for case-level data
- The office says records allowing the number to be calculated 'could be located and provided'
- Then declines, on the ground that the requester's own scope limitation had placed the count outside the request
- The aggregate report is said to live in the old case-tracking system the office no longer has access to
- Third time in the archive the office concedes the underlying data exists while refusing the aggregate, after 25-278 and 26-28
- No fee estimate, no denial form, no count of withheld records
New page
FOIA 26-291
- Asked for a privilege log for what FOIA 25-195 withheld
- The office answered with a nine-row table of documents that were produced, all authored by Prosecutor Wickman
- The letter cites 'MCL 15.243(9)'; section 15.243 ends at subsection (4), and the attorney-client exemption is 15.243(1)(g)
- Four paragraphs after asserting privilege, the letter says the records 'were not deemed privileged'
- The written privilege policy and the related correspondence are denied as nonexistent
- No count of records withheld in full or in part, and no Notice of Denial form
New page
FOIA 26-290
- Six items on victim-services staffing and grant funding; five are labelled 'granted' and produce nothing
- The office withholds all five under Densmore, saying they were already produced in FOIA 25-279
- 25-279, already on this site, contains no responsive documents -- only a denial, a blank appeal form and $34,673.79 in cost itemizations
- Item 6, on contracted providers, is not addressed at all
- The office confirms eight employees and one victim advocate, so the headcount is already public
- No fee, no itemization, no denial form, no word on the MCL 15.234 waiver
- Answered on the third business day, the fastest response in the archive
October 30, 2026
9 changes
New page
FOIA 26-35
- Asked how many plea agreements the office entered and had accepted in January 2026
- Office answered GRANTED in full with a number -- 52 -- in a two-page letter, quoting no fee
- Conceded the 52 includes misdemeanor traffic tickets, so it is a ceiling and not an exact count
- Said no document or record of an aggregate numerical total exists, then compiled one anyway in about 85 minutes
- The letter dates the request February 10 and the receipt February 17; the enclosed fax log shows February 9 at 2:05 p.m.
- Counted from February 9, February 17 is the fifth business day -- timely only because February 16 is a state holiday
- 85 minutes for 52 pleas is about 1.63 minutes per plea, against 20, 14 and 5 minutes per file elsewhere in the archive
- The letter reserves the right to charge in future: 'the granting of this request does not mean that future requests will not be subject to a fee estimation'
New page
FOIA 26-32
- Asked for any records on how the case-management migration affects the office's ability to answer FOIA requests
- Office answered GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and produced five records across 95 pages, quoting no fee
- Partial denial was contact information only, under MCL 15.243(1)(a) -- the narrowest and best-justified in the archive
- The produced memos say the data 'did not transition completely, or accurately' and that the office 'was warned of this prior to the implementation'
- Old system's exact data is 'no longer available'; files are organized by name, so year-based search is 'not viable'
- A commissioner proposed a cheaper technical fix; the prosecutor said the office has 'not reentered this information because we don't have time'
- Release contains three per-file time estimates for the same work -- 20, 14, and 5 minutes
- The 25-278 itemization reproduced inside overcharges two lines by $4.13 each -- the same defect as 26-28 and 26-29
New page
FOIA 26-30
- Asked for the total number of criminal cases initiated from the election date through December 31, 2025
- Office identified eight responsive documents by title and date range and produced none of them
- Refusal rests on Densmore v. Department of Corrections, cited as '203 Mich 363' instead of 203 Mich.App. 363
- Office certified no record containing the total exists, then said the total 'can be gleaned' from documents it would not produce
- Six of the eight documents match what 25-195 produced; the two 21st Century Reports covering 2024 and 2025 do not appear in either prior release
- Board's June 27, 2025 decision on the 25-94 appeal records those periods as denied, not produced
- No fee quoted and no waiver decision recorded
New page
FOIA 26-29
- Asked for a single number: inherited criminal cases that resulted in conviction, as aggregate data only
- Office reported it could not locate a record containing the total and interpreted 'inherited' by reference to a different request, 26-28
- Underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,033.33, with a $516.66 deposit
- Pricing baseline of 500 files, against 3,300 in 26-21 and 6,000 in 25-279 for the same category of work
- Itemization's own rounding rule yields $409.20 on line 3a, not the $413.33 printed -- a $4.13 overcharge
- Letter says 180 days; itemization says 270 days, both dated the same day
- Fee waiver requested and never decided, for the fifth consecutive file
New page
FOIA 26-28
- Asked for a single number: criminal cases pending or in progress when the current prosecutor assumed office, as aggregate data only
- Office answered GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and certified that no record states the total
- Underlying data granted subject to segregation and priced at $1,653.33, with an $826.66 deposit
- Pricing baseline of 800 files -- while 26-29, dated the same day and quoting the same open-file sentence, used 500
- Itemization's own rounding rule yields $657.20 on line 3a, not the $661.33 printed -- the same $4.13 overcharge as 26-29
- First packet in the archive to supply both a denial-appeal form and an excess-fee appeal form
- This is the request 26-29 cites by number when defining 'inherited' -- the citation is now checkable and holds up
- Fee waiver requested and never decided, for the sixth consecutive file
New page
FOIA 26-21
- New FOIA page published with the full document set, both letters, and the opinion piece
- Asked for a total count of criminal convictions, 2023 through 2025, as aggregate data only
- Denied as a compilation under MCL 15.233(5) with a certificate of nonexistence — no count produced
- Fee of $9,548.00 with a $4,774.00 deposit quoted for the underlying files
- A February 12 amended response changed the volume from 1,500 to 1,100 files per year and nothing else
- At the itemization's own rates, 1,500 files per year implies $13,020.00 — a $3,472.00 discrepancy the amendment silently resolved
- Fee waiver requested and never decided; footnote names requests 25-21 and 25-22 that do not exist in the archive
New page
FOIA 25-279
- New FOIA page published with the full document set and the opinion piece
- Asked five categories of personnel and resource data for FY 2020 through the current year
- Dozens of sub-items marked GRANTED in the letter — and zero responsive documents in the 74-page packet
- Three itemizations totaling $34,673.79 with $17,336.89 in deposits and clocks of 30, 180 and 30 days
- The caseload invoice prices a 6,000-file review at 'approximately 1000 cases/year (6 YEARS requested)' — up from four years in the twin requests
- Internal training refused by reference to 25-203 and audits by reference to 25-196, both for 'no good cause'
- FY 2024 and FY 2025 audits 'have not been completed yet and, therefore, do not exist'
New page
FOIA 25-278
- New FOIA page published with the full document set and the opinion piece
- Asked six questions about how the office plea bargains: offer counts, acceptance rates, sentencing ranges, policies, metrics and external reports
- One element granted and produced: 62 trials across 2022–2025, obtained from 'the internal calendar' rather than a file review
- Two blank forms produced under item B(4): SCAO Form MC 414 and a People's Notification of Revocation of Plea Offer template
- Plea-offer data certified not to exist, with a concession that 'the underlying data that would allow for the number to be derived is available'
- $23,146.66 quoted with an $11,573.33 deposit — and a footnote on every line conceding it is 'moot' if the twin 25-277 invoice is paid
New page
FOIA 25-277
- New FOIA page published with the full document set and the opinion piece
- Asked for six years of annual and year-end statistical reports on clearance rates, backlog, conviction and acquittal rates
- Both categories granted in part: the office certified that no statistical report exists, then granted 'the underlying information that would allow for the compilation of the statistics requested'
- $34,720 quoted: 4,000 increments to locate and 1,600 to redact at $6.20 a quarter hour, with a $17,360 deposit and a 180-day estimate
- Unlike FOIA 25-254, the multiplication is correct — 6,000 files at 10 and 4 minutes yields exactly 4,000 and 1,600 increments
- The challenge moves upstream to the premise: 'approximately 1000 cases/year,' a figure used in five responses and never derived from a count
- The office volunteered a five-category definition of 'backlog,' which describes a countable dataset and contradicts the manual-review pricing
- The Notice of Denial checks 'record does not exist' and 'redaction' at once; the redaction is priced before the review it depends on
- 1,400 hours of priced labor does not fit the 180-day estimate: 7.8 hours a day, seven days a week, for one person
- The public-interest waiver section is blank for the fourth consecutive response; the Fee Appeal Form and MCL 15.240a are missing from the packet
- The Wickman Record now carries a pattern on the standing assumption — a volume figure that never moves
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
October 28, 2026
1 change
New page
FOIA 25-254
- New FOIA page published with the full document set, an interactive figure and the opinion piece
- Asked for Brady/Giglio disclosure logs, disclosure templates, and ProsecutorByKarpel officer-credibility fields, 2022 to present
- Paragraph two granted in full: the office produced its Brady/Giglio Compliance Form and the February 15, 2024 memo to six law-enforcement agencies
- Paragraphs one and three denied on two separate certificates of nonexistence
- The $74,520 itemization is identical to the one issued in FOIA 25-244 and dated October 30, 2025 — the day before this request arrived
- It still says '6 YEARS requested' for a request covering 2022 to present
- The printed increments treat minutes as quarter hours: 800 cases at 10 minutes is 533 increments, not 8,000
- The printed total is exactly fifteen times what the letter's own 200-cases-per-year volume yields at the form's own rate
- The Notice of Denial checks all three reason boxes at once; the public-interest waiver section is blank
- The Wickman Record now carries twenty-one patterns, including one on the reused invoice
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
October 26, 2026
4 changes
New page
FOIA 25-257
- New FOIA page published with the full document set and the opinion piece
- Asked for five years of plea and disposition data as a report, export or spreadsheet from the office's case-management system
- All three paragraphs denied on a certificate of nonexistence — in the same letter that says 'the data related to the request is available'
- $19,840 quoted: $12,400 to locate and $7,440 to redact roughly 6,000 files at five and three minutes each
- $9,920 deposit required before any work begins; 180 days estimated; zero records produced
- The Notice of Denial checks 'record does not exist' and 'redaction' at the same time
- The public-interest waiver section of the county's own itemization form is left entirely blank
- The letter's own footnotes cite unfulfilled FOIA 25-177, a 2024-only version of the same request estimated in August 2025
- The Wickman Record now carries twenty patterns, including a new one on the certificate-plus-estimate structure
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
New page
FOIA 25-234 · Case Watch
- Four State Police lab reports released in seven days at no charge, all under laboratory case MQ 24-101
- The heaviest finding on the page is 26.4 grams of cocaine from a traffic stop — not the 'approximately 4 ounces' the press reported after the April 30, 2024 bar raid
- The only report tied to the bar's trash pull records cocaine residue on a plastic bag corner and names a third man, Corey Allen Way, who does not appear in the sentencing records
- Two chain-of-custody requests were certified nonexistent, and the cover letter labels two different reports 'Record Number 2' while never listing Record No. 1
New page
FOIA 25-215
- One request for case processing times received three dispositions in a single letter: records denied as nonexistent, reports denied as nonexistent, then data granted subject to a $13,248 fee
- The office estimated about 533 hours and a $6,624 deposit to locate and redact data it simultaneously certified does not exist
- What it produced instead were seven State Court Administrative Office publications about the courts, not the office's own processing time
- The same packet carries a second $3,312 estimate for FOIA 25-137, a request the office says it already denied and defended on appeal
- Transparency index recalculated; the private working list gained a narrowed one-year follow-up
New case watch
FOIA 25-199 · Case Watch
- The office issued an August 15, 2025 press release to correct a TV story, stating the June 6, 2025 interaction produced 1.7 grams of ketamine
- The charging complaint produced in the same FOIA alleges ketamine possession with no weight alleged — no produced record states 1.7 grams
- The office's own February 18, 2025 release recorded 1.950 grams of ketamine from a different stop four months earlier
- One request received three answers in one letter: granted, granted subject to redaction, and denied as nonexistent
- The February file is 'still under investigation' in August, 'already produced' under 25-171 in September, and its trial-prep records certified nonexistent
- Fee estimate $2,711.67 with a $1,355.83 deposit: $621.00 to locate at $24.82/hr, $2,090.67 to redact at $62.71/hr, no waiver granted
October 25, 2026
16 changes
New assessment
Transparency Index · v1.1.0
- Expanded from 26 to 37 indicators inside the same six categories and fixed weights
- 32 indicators carry a score; 5 are partial and carry no score, never a zero
- Score 41/100, band Limited Transparency, assessment status Definitive at 85.8% evidence coverage
- New cost, deposit, timeline, production, migration, denial and communication measures
- Now covers 16 requests, including FOIA 25-240 and its fully itemized $1,863 quote
- Request-level analytics now show every figure with its denominator and flag samples below five
New case watch
Case Watch · Aker–Horvath
- FOIA 26-136 moved out of the archive and rebuilt as a full case watch on State of Michigan v. Dustin Thomas Aker and Sydney Ann Horvath
- Six new requests indexed alongside 26-136: 26-137, 26-139, 26-140, 26-141, 26-142 and 26-143, all answered in April and May 2026 at no charge
- Four state forensic lab reports released, including two CODIS association notices naming both defendants
- The Aker plea sheet shows a no-contest plea to an added count, four counts and a second file dismissed, and a five-year recommendation — followed by an 80-month to 10-year sentence
- Horvath pleaded to unlawful imprisonment, not a sexual offense, and received a longer maximum than Aker
- Fingerprint request 26-140 answered with a certificate of nonexistence; autopsy request 26-139 answered with a plain factual denial
- Transparency index recalculated with the new requests and the migrated case watch
New page
FOIA 26-136
- New FOIA page published with four interactive graphics
- Three requests faxed the same morning in April 2026 about one 2020 sexual-assault case
- Answered in one letter on the fourth business day, with no extension, no fee and no deposit
- Sixteen pages released: three search-warrant packets from 2020 and 2021
- Arrest warrants denied as not in the office's possession
- Autopsy records denied with a plain factual explanation: no one died, so no autopsy was conducted
- All three denial forms say only part of each request was denied, including the two denied in full
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
New page
FOIA 26-131
- New FOIA page published with four interactive graphics
- A resubmission of 26-101, narrowed to 2025 felony sex-offense cases and five named documents
- Granted in part, then priced at $82.66 with a 50 percent deposit of $41.33
- Four-fifths of the fee is the cost of the office reviewing its own files to decide what to withhold
- The office never addresses the requester's Karpel argument or the 350-versus-1,500 file contradiction
- Public-interest fee waiver section left entirely blank: neither granted nor denied with reasons
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
New page
FOIA 25-244
- New FOIA page published with four interactive graphics
- Request asked for aggregate Brady/Giglio and officer-credibility data, 2020 to 2025
- Office certified that no annual summary, log, tagged export or PbK dashboard exists
- Thirteen Brady/Giglio policy documents granted in full at no charge
- Ten Proof of Service slips produced as the whole disclosure record, January 2024 to September 2025
- $74,520 quote with a $37,260 deposit before any search would begin
- Public-interest fee waiver requested under MCL 15.234(1); every waiver field left blank
- Transparency score recalculated: 41 to 38, band Low Transparency
New FOIA analysis
FOIA · 25-241
- FOIA 25-241 added: charging and declination records for law enforcement personnel, 2020 to present, filed October 10, 2025 and answered October 30, 2025
- The office produced its own September 11, 2022 petition for a special prosecutor, which states that it 'believes we are disqualified from pursuing a criminal case'
- The Attorney General's criminal division replied on September 15, 2022 that it did not see a conflict; PACC relayed the denial on September 19, 2022
- A May 20, 2024 declination memo in a second State Police incident says the matter 'was not sent for review' because there was 'not a substantial change in the relationship'
- Four conflict-of-interest documents produced, including the PAAM best-practice recommendation and the office's own SPA checklist
- The 25-241 cost itemization charges $17,388 plus $621, which is $18,009, but prints a subtotal of $1,863 and a deposit of $931.50
- Transparency index recalculated: 38 Low Transparency, 37.61, coverage 91.40 percent
- Wickman Record updated with a twelfth pattern and a new playbook paragraph on the itemization
New page
FOIA 25-240
- New FOIA page published
- Request asked how the office reviews law enforcement misconduct, use-of-force incidents, and officer-involved shootings, 2020 to present
- Office denied parts two, three and four on certificates of nonexistence: no review memos, no written use-of-force standard, no referral correspondence
- Part one granted only for incidents in which an officer is not the suspect, at a $1,863.00 estimate with a $931.50 deposit
- Requester asked for a public-interest fee waiver under MCL 15.234(1); both waiver boxes on the county's cost form are blank
- Response was timely on either receipt date, and the itemization arithmetic is correct
New page
FOIA 25-239
- New FOIA page published
- Request asked for any list, memo, or database of officers with sustained credibility findings, the office's tracking policy, and the date of the last update
- Office granted in part and denied in part, producing 137 pages at no charge
- Part-three answer describes a case-by-case, request-driven practice rather than a maintained list
- Packet includes a 2017 Brady/Giglio letter template, an MSP investigation into an Escanaba officer over retained license plates, and a trooper's internal-affairs settlement
- April 2025 MSP email discloses that a memo referenced in a written reprimand 'was never created'
New page
FOIA 25-202
- Certified: no request for proposals, no vendor bid and no purchase order exists for the office's case-management system
- Produced anyway: thirteen pages of emails showing the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan ran the procurement
- ProsecutorByKarpel won 52 of 66 county votes in March 2023, 78.78 percent, after a November 2022 day of vendor demos
- Wickman's own March 8, 2023 email forwarded all three vendors' price sheets to the county administrator and predicted Karpel
- The letter says the fee is 'specifically outlined in the attached FOIA Fee Itemization' — no itemization is in the packet, and no dollar figure appears anywhere
New page
FOIA 25-200
- The only complete grant in the archive: seven systems named, nothing withheld, nothing redacted, $0
- ProsecutorByKarpel 7.5.03.21.2025 supplied in full; NextCloud named and then certified as having no record
- Four of the seven systems are administered by other agencies — Escanaba Public Safety, the Sheriff, Hannahville Tribal Police and the Michigan State Police
- Nothing is named as planned for use, so the third request in the same fax is still open
- “Until approximately June 10, 2024” is the first date the office has put on the end of the Karpel predecessor systems
New page
FOIA 25-196
- New FOIA page published with three interactive graphics
- Asked for every audit, audit finding, evaluation, transmittal, response plan and draft concerning the prosecutor's office from 2019 through 2024
- Five county-wide 'Basic Financial Statements' produced, 734 pages total, at no fee
- Fiscal years 2022 and 2024 fall inside the requested window and are absent from the release
- Fiscal year 2018, outside the window, was produced anyway
- No cover letter, no denial form, no exemption cited and no certificate of nonexistence for the two missing years
- Every document produced is the county's own financial statement, not an audit or evaluation of the prosecutor's office
- No correspondence, response plan, corrective action report or draft the request named was produced
New page
FOIA 25-195
- New FOIA page published with three interactive graphics
- Asked for every report, evaluation, assessment, audit and case statistic the office prepared in 2023 and 2024, drafts and 'confidential' records included
- Ten documents and 71 pages produced: two budget memos with attachments, two drafts, and four Adult Case Tracking reports run 11/30/2023
- One category withheld wholesale on attorney-client privilege — 'reports provided to or prepared for county officials' — while two memos addressed to the Board of County Commissioners were produced
- Performance reviews, evaluations and operational assessments certified nonexistent, with no search described
- $5,961.60 quoted, $2,980.80 deposit required, 270 days — 480 locate increments and 480 redact increments at the same $6.21 rate
- The four case-tracking reports contain exactly the kind of 2023 case counts the office certified did not exist in 25-134, 25-136 and 25-137
- The FY 2024-25 budget memo offers 'final review of any complex FOIA requests' as a funded service — the office proposing to review its own FOIA compliance
New page
FOIA 25-194
- New FOIA page published with three interactive graphics
- Asked for one year of Prosecutor Wickman's correspondence in four categories — law enforcement, defense counsel, county officials, and media — and offered to accept a log of date, sender, recipient and subject first
- The office never answered the log offer and quoted $63,028.80 instead
- The itemization bills 2,880 quarter-hour increments to locate at $6.21 and the same 2,880 increments to redact at $15.68 — 720 hours twice
- $31,514.40 deposit required before any work begins; 270 days estimated; zero pages produced
- The four-page response letter calls the request both 'denied' and 'granted' on consecutive pages
- Thirteen statutory exemptions listed without mapping any of them to a category of record
- The second-largest estimate in the archive, behind 25-244's $74,520
- The Wickman Record now carries fourteen patterns, including the same hours billed twice
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
New page
FOIA 25-180
- New FOIA page published
- Request asked for 2024 trial counts by type and verdict; office answered in four business days at no charge
- Notice of Denial checks both box 1 “Exempt from Disclosure” and box 2 “Record Does Not Exist” — the exemption subsection line is blank
- Letter points to FOIA 25-135 and Densmore; the 25-135 production contains four jury trial sheets with verdicts
- Zero pages produced, zero dollars quoted; correlation notes added to 25-135, 25-136, 26-22 and 25-133
New page
FOIA 25-139
- New FOIA page published with two interactive graphics and two comparison tables
- Asked whether any 2024 forfeiture was tied to a criminal case later dismissed or not convicted, with six data fields per case
- Denied in full on a certificate of nonexistence: no pages, no fee, no exemption cited
- The eighteen-page packet contains no extension notice for 25-139 — the only extension form in it names request 25-129
- Same requester faxed companion requests 25-173 and 25-174 the same morning, one of them to the Circuit Court
- Board of Commissioners upheld the denial on August 20, 2025 without describing any search
- The misfiled 25-129 extension form was moved to the 25-129 record and logged in a new extension-notice register
New page
FOIA 25-137
- New FOIA page published with three interactive graphics
- Asked for the average charge-to-disposition time for all 2024 criminal cases, overall and split between felony and misdemeanor
- The office took a ten-business-day extension for a “voluminous amount” of records, then certified that no responsive record exists
- Zero pages produced, zero dollars quoted, zero exemptions cited; the denial form is dated one day after the cover letter
- The letter never invokes MCL 15.233(4), the provision that would let it decline to compile a figure it could produce
- Board of Commissioners upheld the denial on August 20, 2025 in a one-page letter that does not mention the extension
- The Wickman Record now carries thirteen patterns, including a statistical question answered with a certificate of nonexistence
- Transparency index recalculated with the new request profile
October 23, 2026
9 changes
Cross-reference added
FOIA 26-22
- Correlation note added: 26-22 bills 7 minutes per file, 25-133 bills 4 — same rate, different assumption
- $2.89 per file here against $1.66 per file in 25-133
Cross-reference added
FOIA 25-136
- Correlation notes added: 25-134 and 25-135, the same-morning requests
New page
FOIA 25-135
- New FOIA page published
- Page one: “the record do not exist.” Page two: eight case files produced
- Four of five requested columns were in the pages; the privacy exemption reached one
- Notice of Denial checks both “Record Does Not Exist” and “Redaction”
- Correlation notes added to 25-134, 25-136 and 25-133
Cross-reference added
FOIA 25-134
- Correlation note added: 25-135, same morning and same certificate, produced 24 pages
Cross-reference added
FOIA 25-133
- Correlation note added: a certificate of nonexistence has twice been followed by the records
Cross-reference added
FOIA 25-132 · Case Watch
- Correlation note added linking to FOIA 25-130
- Both responses assert a conclusion without the record behind it
- 25-130 is the closest comparison in the archive
Cross-reference added
FOIA 25-131 · Case Watch
- Correlation note added linking to FOIA 25-130
- Same June 26, 2025 fax batch; same zero fee and four-business-day response
- Contrast drawn: a denial can be appealed; an omission cannot
New case watch
FOIA 25-130 · Case Watch
- New case watch published on the April 2024 UPSET bar raid
- Request asked for defendant names and dispositions in the plural; two men were arraigned
- Office produced two judgments for one defendant and never mentioned the other
- Co-defendant's October 2024 plea, 2-day sentence, $908 fine and probation described by the prosecutor to the Daily Press three days before the response
- Denial form checks only the redaction box; the section 13 subsection field is blank
Cross-reference added
FOIA 25-129
- Correlation note added: same itemization form, same $24.82 wage and $6.21 increment as 25-133
- 25-129 produced records alongside its quote; 25-133 demanded $1,407.60 first