Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

May 20, 2011 

142051 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142051 

 COA: 292547 

Wayne CC: 08-014892-FC 

VALERIE MARIE PARKS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

MARILYN KELLY, J. (dissenting) 

 I dissent from the order denying defendant’s request for leave to appeal. The 

application raises a jurisprudentially significant issue regarding the legal implications of 

the police failing to make an audio or visual recording of a custodial interrogation. This 

issue has received increased attention nationwide in recent years as more and more states 

implement some form of electronic recording requirement. 

 In Stephan v State,

1

 the Alaska Supreme Court held that a failure to electronically 

record a custodial interrogation conducted in a place of detention violates a suspect’s 

right to due process under the state constitution. In Alaska, any statement thus obtained 

is generally inadmissible at trial. However, all other courts that have opined on the issue 

of whether the failure to record a custodial interrogation violates their state constitution 

have found it unmeritorious.2

 Among them is our own Court of Appeals.3 This Court 

has not yet considered the issue. 

 Although most courts have concluded that a failure to electronically record police 

interrogations does not violate their state constitution, many have recognized the benefits

 

1

 711 P2d 1156 (Alaska, 1985). 

2 See, e.g., State v Lockhart, 298 Conn 537, 557 n 10 (2010) (collecting cases).

3 People v Fike, 228 Mich App 178, 184 (1998). 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 20, 2011 

p0517 

 

2

of such recordings to all parties.4

 Consequently, many states now require them. A few 

courts have adopted mandatory recording requirements as part of their supervisory 

powers. They have held that the proper remedy for a violation of that requirement is 

suppression at trial of the statement made to the police.5

 Other courts imposing a 

recording requirement have adopted the remedy of a cautionary jury instruction when that 

requirement is violated.6

 Still other courts that have not yet adopted a recording rule have 

directed further study on the merits of adopting such a rule.7

 

 Several state legislatures have passed statutes requiring electronic recording of 

police interrogations.8

 In Michigan, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring 

electronic recording of interrogations in 2010,9

 but the legislative session ended before 

the Senate took it up. The Michigan Senate unanimously passed a similar bill in April of 

this year, and the measure is currently pending in the House.10 

 Given these developments, I would grant defendant’s application for leave to 

appeal. The issue that defendant presents involves legal principles of major significance 

to this state’s jurisprudence. The Court should determine whether, in the exercise of its 

supervisory powers, it should require that all custodial police interrogations in Michigan 

be electronically recorded. If so, it should determine the appropriate remedy for a 

violation of that requirement. 

 

4

 See, e.g., id. at 188-190 (FITZGERALD, J., concurring). 

5 State v Scales, 518 NW2d 587, 592 (Minn, 1994); State v Barnett, 147 NH 334, 338 

(2001) (a recorded interrogation is inadmissible unless the defendant’s statement is 

recorded in its entirety); In re Jerrell CJ, 283 Wis 2d 145 (2005) (juvenile interrogations 

only). 

6 Commonwealth v DiGiambattista, 442 Mass 423, 445-446 (2004); NJ Crim Prac R 

3:17. 

7 See, e.g., Clark v State, 374 Ark 292, 304 (2008) (“[W]e believe that the criminal 

justice system will be better served if our supervisory authority is brought to bear on this 

issue. We therefore refer the practicability of adopting such a [recording] rule to the 

Committee on Criminal Practice for study and consideration.”). 

8

 DC Code 5-116.01; 725 Ill Comp Stat Ann 5/103-2.1; Me Rev Stat Ann tit 25, § 2803-

B(1)(K); Tex Code Crim Proc Ann art 38.22, § 3; Wis Stat § 972.115. 

9

 HB 5763. 

10 SB 152.