Wrongful imprisonment compensation, FOIA and the Open Meetings Act in Michigan

A person convicted of a Michigan crime who served at least part of a sentence in a state correctional facility may recover if the person proves by clear and convincing evidence that the conviction was reversed or vacated and the charges were dismissed or ended in acquittal on retrial, and that new evidence shows the person did not commit the crime and was not an accomplice or accessory.

MCL 691.1753 lets a person convicted and then imprisoned in a state correctional facility for crimes he or she did not commit sue the state in the Court of Claims. Under MCL 691.1755(1), the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was convicted of a Michigan crime, sentenced to imprisonment in a state correctional facility, and served at least part of the sentence; that the judgment was reversed or vacated and the charges were dismissed or the plaintiff was found not guilty on retrial; and that new evidence demonstrates the plaintiff did not perpetrate the crime and was not an accomplice or accessory, and that the new evidence resulted in the reversal or dismissal. A plaintiff who was convicted of another offense arising from the same transaction that was not dismissed is not entitled to compensation. The Michigan Supreme Court describes the Act's two steps, eligibility and then compensation, in Ricks v State of Michigan. The complaint must be verified and documented and served on the attorney general and the county prosecutor under MCL 691.1754.

Authority: MCL 691.1753; MCL 691.1755(1); MCL 691.1754; Ricks v Michigan, 507 Mich 387 (2021). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

The court awards $50,000 for each year from imprisonment until release, prorated by day for part of a year. A WICA action must be commenced within 3 years after entry of a verdict, order, or judgment as the result of the reversal or vacation of the conviction and the dismissal of the charges or acquittal on retrial, and a state challenge or appeal of that order tolls the period.

MCL 691.1755(2)(a) provides $50,000 for each year from the date the plaintiff was imprisoned until release, whether released on parole or at the maximum sentence, prorated at 1/365 of $50,000 per day for less than a year. The court also awards reimbursement of amounts collected from the plaintiff under the state correctional facility reimbursement act and reasonable attorney fees, capped at the lesser of 10 percent of the amount awarded for the per-year compensation and the reimbursement, or $50,000, plus expenses. Fees are awarded only after the plaintiff has actually paid the attorney and may not be deducted from the plaintiff's compensation. Time served under a concurrent or consecutive sentence for another conviction is not compensated, and injuries sustained in prison are not compensated under the Act. The court may order payment in one sum or installments, with at least 20 percent paid initially and the rest over no more than 10 years. The award is not subject to income tax, but child support is deducted. Under MCL 691.1757(1), the filing deadline is 3 years from that order, and a state challenge to it tolls the period. Subsection (2) gave people released before March 29, 2017 a separate 18-month window after the 2020 amendment.

Authority: MCL 691.1755(2), (4)-(6), (10)-(11); MCL 691.1757(1), (2). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes, in federal court. Acceptance of a WICA award, or a compromise or settlement, must be in writing and, unless procured by fraud, is final, releases all claims against the state, and bars any state-court action against the state on the same subject. But it does not waive or bar an action in federal court against an individual alleged to have been involved in the investigation, prosecution, or conviction.

MCL 691.1755(8) provides that acceptance of an award, or of a compromise or settlement of the claim, must be in writing and, unless procured by fraud, is final and conclusive, constitutes a complete release of all claims against this state, and is a complete bar to any action in state court by the plaintiff against the state based on the same subject matter. The same subsection says the acceptance does not operate as a waiver of, or bar to, any action in federal court against an individual alleged to have been involved in the investigation, prosecution, or conviction that gave rise to the wrongful conviction or imprisonment. Subsection (13) makes the award subject to setoff or reimbursement for damages obtained for the wrongful conviction or imprisonment from any other person. So a federal civil rights case against individuals can follow a WICA award, but the order of events and the setoff matter. Nothing in the WICA provisions extends the deadline for the federal case, which has its own limitations period. Because a signed acceptance is final, the exact wording and the timing of both cases should be reviewed before anything is signed.

Authority: MCL 691.1755(8), (13). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Send a written request to the public body's FOIA coordinator that describes the record sufficiently to find it. Unless you agree otherwise in writing, the public body must respond within 5 business days after receiving it, by granting, denying in writing, granting in part, or issuing one notice extending the time by up to 10 business days.

Under MCL 15.233(1), a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of a public record on a written request to the FOIA coordinator describing the record sufficiently to enable the public body to find it. Unless the requester is indigent, the request must include the requester's complete name, address, and contact information, with a valid telephone number or email address. MCL 15.235(2) requires a response within 5 business days after the public body receives the request, unless the requester agreed otherwise in writing, by granting it, issuing a written denial, granting it in part and denying it in part, or issuing a notice extending the response period for not more than 10 business days; only one extension notice is allowed. An emailed request is treated as received 1 business day after it is sent. A failure to respond can be a final denial if it was willful and intentional, or if the request used language such as FOIA or information in the specified places. The act does not require a public body to create a new record under MCL 15.233(5).

Authority: MCL 15.233(1), (5); MCL 15.235(1)-(3). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

You can submit a written appeal to the head of the public body that uses the word appeal and states the reasons for reversal, or sue in circuit court (the Court of Claims for a state public body) within 180 days after the final determination. The statute does not say an appeal pauses the 180 days. The court decides the matter de novo and the burden is on the public body.

A written denial is a final determination under MCL 15.235(5), and it must explain the legal basis for withholding and the requester's appeal and judicial review rights. Under MCL 15.240(1), the requester may either submit to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word appeal and identifies the reasons for reversal, or commence a civil action in the circuit court, or the Court of Claims if a state public body made the decision, within 180 days after the final determination. The statute does not say that an appeal to the head of the public body pauses the 180 days, so count them from the written denial. The head of the public body must respond to an appeal within 10 business days, with one extension of up to 10 more business days in unusual circumstances. In court, the matter is decided de novo and the burden is on the public body to sustain its denial. In Coblentz v City of Novi, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that a FOIA request must be fulfilled unless a specific exemption in MCL 15.243 applies, and that FOIA is a prodisclosure act.

Authority: MCL 15.235(5); MCL 15.240(1), (2), (4); Coblentz v Novi, 475 Mich 558 (2006). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Often some of them. In Rataj v City of Romulus, the Court of Appeals held that police video of an assault and the names of the citizen and officer were subject to disclosure, while home addresses, birth dates, phone numbers, internal investigation reports, and the officer's personnel file were exempt on that record. The reason you want the records is irrelevant.

MCL 15.243(1)(b) lets a public body withhold investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes only to the extent disclosure would, for example, interfere with law enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of a fair trial, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or endanger officers. MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix) covers law enforcement personnel records, unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance. Rataj applied the privacy exemption in MCL 15.243(1)(a) and the personnel-records exemption in (1)(s)(ix) to a Romulus police assault video and incident report. It reversed the denial of the video and the names, upheld redaction of addresses, birth dates, and phone numbers, and upheld withholding of internal investigation reports and the officer's personnel file on that record. The court also said that the initial and future uses of the information, such as using it in a civil suit, are irrelevant to whether an exemption applies. Exemptions are read narrowly, and the public body has the burden. A FOIA request made before suit can help locate evidence.

Authority: MCL 15.243(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(s)(ix); Rataj v Romulus, 306 Mich App 735, 752-756 (2014). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

If you prevail, the court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. If the public body arbitrarily and capriciously violated the act by refusal or delay, the court orders a $1,000 civil fine and awards you $1,000 in punitive damages, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages.

MCL 15.240(6) says that if a person asserting the right to inspect or copy a public record prevails in an action, the court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; if the requester or the public body prevails in part, the court may award an appropriate portion. Under subsection (7), if the court determines that the public body arbitrarily and capriciously violated the act by refusal or delay in disclosing or providing copies, the court shall order a civil fine of $1,000, deposited in the general fund, and shall award $1,000 in punitive damages to the requester, in addition to actual or compensatory damages. In Amberg v City of Dearborn, the Michigan Supreme Court said that a claim mooted by disclosure after the suit was filed does not by itself decide the fee question, and a requester prevails if the action was reasonably necessary to compel disclosure and had a substantial causative effect on delivery of the information. The awards are assessed against the public body, not an individual.

Authority: MCL 15.240(6), (7); Amberg v Dearborn, 497 Mich 28 (2014). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 15.263, all meetings of a public body must be open to the public and held in a place available to the general public, and all decisions and quorum deliberations must take place at an open meeting except as the act provides. You may record or broadcast the meeting, and you cannot be required to register to attend.

MCL 15.263(1) requires all meetings of a public body to be open to the public and held in a place available to the general public, and the right to attend includes the right to tape-record, videotape, broadcast live on radio, and telecast live on television the proceedings without the body's prior approval, subject to reasonable rules to prevent disruption. Subsection (2) requires all decisions of a public body to be made at an open meeting, and subsection (3) requires deliberations of a quorum to take place at an open meeting except as provided in the act. A person cannot be required to register or provide a name as a condition of attendance, under subsection (4), and under subsection (5) a person must be permitted to address the body under rules the body establishes and records. Under subsection (6), a person may be excluded only for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting. The act has closed session provisions that matter when a body claims one applied.

Authority: MCL 15.263(1)-(6). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Any person may sue in circuit court to invalidate a decision made in violation of the act, but the court lacks jurisdiction unless the action is started within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available, or 30 days for certain contract, bid, assessment, and bond decisions. Fees are available only if you obtain injunctive relief.

MCL 15.270(1) lets the attorney general, the county prosecutor, or any person sue in circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision made in violation of the act. Subsection (3) says the court has no jurisdiction to invalidate a decision unless the action is commenced within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public, or within 30 days for decisions involving contracts, bids, assessments, bond procedures, or a borrowing proposal. Decisions are presumed to comply with the act, and under subsection (2) a decision may be invalidated only for noncompliance with MCL 15.263(1) to (3) or for a notice failure that interfered with that compliance and impaired the public's rights. Under subsection (5), the public body may reenact the decision in compliance with the act. MCL 15.271 separately authorizes an action to compel compliance or enjoin noncompliance and provides costs and actual attorney fees to a person who succeeds. In Speicher v Columbia Township Board of Trustees, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the person must succeed in obtaining injunctive relief, not just any relief, to recover fees. Because the deadlines are short and run from the minutes, the posting date of the minutes is the first thing to check.

Authority: MCL 15.270(1)-(3), (5); MCL 15.271(1), (4); Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 497 Mich 125 (2014). Reviewed Oct. 2026.