Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


FRED MAGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE and JOHN L. McCARTHY, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED December 12, 1997

No. 197222 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 96-083751-AZ

Before: Kelly, P.J., and Reilly and Jansen, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from an August 9, 1996, order of the circuit court denying his motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and granting defendants' motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2). We reverse. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.; MSA 4.1801(1) et seq., to obtain the names and addresses of people who have purchased handguns. Plaintiff had initially requested, in writing, from the State Police Department the names and addresses of all people who had been issued a "pistol safety certificate" since November 1995. The State Police denied plaintiff's request, claiming that the following exemption from disclosure under the FOIA applied: (1) A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act: (a) Information of a personal nature where the public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. [MCL 15.243; MSA 4.1801(13).] Plaintiff then filed suit in the Ingham Circuit Court to compel defendants to provide him with the requested information under the FOIA. Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary disposition pursuant

-1

to MCR 2.116(C)(10), and defendants submitted a brief in opposition and a brief in support of summary disposition in their favor under MCR 2.116(I)(2). The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for summary disposition and granted defendants' motion. It found that disclosure of the information would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy." The trial court specifically noted that the pistol certificate holders did not have any contractual relationship with a public body, and that the nature of the disclosure (a list of the owners of firearms and the location of those firearms) involved a serious invasion of privacy. The trial court also ruled that the release of the names and addresses did not satisfy the "core purpose" of the FOIA because it would not aid participation in the democratic process as it would not help citizens to learn about the inner workings of government or the conduct of government officials. We review the trial court's decision regarding the motions for summary disposition de novo. Nicita v Detroit (After Remand), 216 Mich App 746, 750; 550 NW2d 269 (1996). There are no facts in dispute in this case, and we are required to interpret

Download FRED MAGER V DEPT OF STATE POLICE.pdf

Michigan Law