Opinion ID: 1992508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: introduction to foia

Text: Before the enactment of the FOIA in 1977, Michigan enjoyed a long history of allowing citizens free access to public records. Booth Newspapers, Inc v Muskegon Probate Judge, 15 Mich App 203; 166 NW2d 546 (1968). In Booth, the Court of Appeals stated: The fundamental rule in Michigan on the matter before us, first enunciated in the case of Burton v Tuite (1889), 78 Mich 363 [44 NW 282], is that citizens have the general right of free access to, and public inspection of, public records. The Nowack [ v Auditor General, 243 Mich 200; 219 NW 749 (1928)] decision has placed Michigan at the vanguard of those states holding that a citizen's accessibility to public records must be given the broadest possible effect. [ Id. at 205, 207.] Some ten years after the federal FOIA was enacted by Congress, Michigan enacted its FOIA in 1977. One of the reasons prompting the legislation was concern over abuses in the operation of government. A policy of full disclosure underlies the FOIA. The preamble to the act, MCL 15.231(2); MSA 4.1801(1)(2), provides: It is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process. Section 3(1) of the act states: Upon an oral or written request which describes the public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record, a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of a public record of a public body, except as otherwise expressly provided by section 13. Therefore, all public records are subject to full disclosure under the act unless the material is specifically exempt under  13. Also, when a public body refuses to disclose a requested document under the act, and the requester sues to compel disclosure, the public agency bears the burden of proving that the refusal was justified under the act. MCL 15.240(1); MSA 4.1801(10)(1). In construing the provisions of the act, we keep in mind that the FOIA is intended primarily as a prodisclosure statute and the exemptions to disclosure are to be narrowly construed. [6] State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Management & Budget, 428 Mich 104; 404 NW2d 606 (1987). Defendant does not dispute that the county medical examiner's office is a public body, nor does he dispute that the test results and report requested by plaintiff are public records. We agree that the county coroner's office is a public body under  2(b)(iii) of the act. [7] We also believe that the documents prepared by defendant were prepared in the performance of an official function, and are therefore public records. [8]