The way felony court records are accessed in Michigan is set to change this summer, with differing opinions as to whether or not it’s a good idea. The new rule, which goes into effect on Jul 2nd, restricts records from being public anywhere other than where the case was last heard. This means that records for cases moving to a circuit court wouldn’t be available in a district court and vice versa if a case is remanded back to a district court.
The rule was created so the courts would be in compliance with the Michigan Clean Slate Act, a law that took effect during the pandemic in April 2021. The law defines the types of criminal convictions that should be automatically expunged, and which are now eligible for expungement through an application process.
The problem, according to critics of the rule like the Michigan Press Association, is that it applies to all criminal cases, not just ones that are expunged. In a partial dissent regarding the ruling, Justice David Viviano pointed out a more practical issue with the law, that circuit courts are more difficult to access for the average citizen compared to a municipal or district court.
Other expressed concerns included an increased workload for staff in processing files and potential issues for courts trying to access clarifying information in files marked nonpublic. A theme present in most criticisms of the new rule was that it was too broad. While it was designed to ensure expungements are handled appropriately, it’s applicable to many more cases than just those expunged.
Obviously, the rule wouldn’t be moving forward if there weren’t some sense or positive impact from it. The idea is that a felony expungement in the circuit court may have remnants to clean up from a district court. By consolidating the location of filings, it’s easier to ensure that the entirety of a case is correctly marked non-public. In the case of records with no expungement, the state court administrator believes centralizing filings will make things less confusing for the average citizen looking for certain records, with them available in one place rather than two.
Several courts are holding hearings to get more detailed feedback from constituents, but for now, they all plan to move ahead with the rule as it has been passed. It’s always a delicate balance between accessibility and privacy with government records and while overly broad rules are a problem, there is always time to make adjustments down the road.
About the Author: Chris Mack
Chris is a Marketing Manager at Extract with experience in product development, data analysis, and both traditional and digital marketing. Chris received his bachelor’s degree in English from Bucknell University and has an MBA from the University of Notre Dame. A passionate marketer, Chris strives to make complex ideas more accessible to those around him in a compelling way.