LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit brought by the Detroit Metro Times, requesting the release of the identities of all current and former police officers in Michigan.

This information is sought as part of a project aimed at establishing a national database to track police misconduct.

Who is trying to get the information?

MORE NEWS: U.S. Coast Guard Rescues Stranded Boaters

In January of 2023, the Detroit Metro Times and the Chicago-based nonprofit Invisible Institute sought the names of both certified and uncertified police officers in Michigan, as well as details regarding their employment backgrounds. The request was initially made to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES), housed within the Michigan State Police (MSP)

However, in March of 2023, the Michigan State Police (MSP) refused to disclose the identities of the officers, contending that “the public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy” and “would endanger the life and safety of the law enforcement officers and their families.”

MSP protecting officers and their families from those who would use information to target them for harm.

Michigan law has a FOIA exemption for releasing the names of police officers. That can be found at MCL 15.243(1)(s)(viii) and is called the “police-identity exemption.” There are many exemptions listed including the fact that records are exempt unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. The release of information is weighed against whether it would “endanger the life or safety of law enforcement officers or agents or their families, relatives, children, parents, or those who furnish information to law enforcement departments or agencies.”

The University of Michigan’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative, acting on behalf of Metro Times and the Invisible Institute, initiated a lawsuit in November of 2023 in the Michigan Court of Claims to compel the release of the data. Subsequently, MSP filed a motion to dismiss the case.

In her amicus curiae brief filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims, Nessel, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, advocates for transparency and accountability within law enforcement and is supporting the release of the information.

AG Nessel argues for release of information – compares police officers to plumbers.

Nessel argues that the power bestowed upon law enforcement officers necessitates transparency to mitigate the risk of abuse. Drawing parallels to other licensed professions such as plumbers and barbers where individuals’ identities are made public, Nessel asserts that police officers should be held to the same standard.

MORE NEWS: Ottawa County Board of Commissioners Votes to Give Themselves a Hefty Raise

The court document says, “Making these names public serves goals of transparency, accountability, and protection of the public. Not only does it promote accountability among those who are licensed, it also protects the public from those who are not licensed in good standing.”

The court document continues to say, “Our State – like all states – gives a great deal of power to law enforcement officers – and not just a great amount of power, but indeed a monopoly on such power… But it is an axiom of human nature that giving some people power over others entails a risk that this power will be abused. And to this end, our laws generally require that those who wield governmental power do their work in the sunlight.”

AG doesn’t think the public having names of police officers would put the officers in danger.

Nessel’s brief contends the refusal to disclose officer names contradicts Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act and fails to demonstrate that such disclosure would endanger officers’ safety.

The brief states, “The balance of public interests regarding disclosure of the names of police officers weighs in favor of disclosure, and MSP has not satisfied its burden of showing that the ‘police-identity exemption’ requires concealment.”

Nessel emphasizes in her press release about the amicus curiae brief that the plaintiffs are not seeking sensitive information like officers’ home addresses or undercover roles, but rather information essential for transparency and accountability. However, things like home addresses and social media accounts are easy enough to find once an individual has a name.

Additionally, Nessel doesn’t mention how the information can be used against police officers in a new reality of a “Defund the Police” narrative, with opponents of the police using information to “dox” police officers, which is the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent. And with a database of what an organization lists as “bad cops,” that scenario would make doxing police officers a much easier task.

Homeland Security says releasing personal information about officers exposes them to a potential for harm.

In June of 2022, information from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, obtained by the Associated Press, revealed that personal details of police officers from various departments across the country had been exposed online amidst heightened tensions during protests related to the death of George Floyd and similar incidents.

The unclassified intelligence document from Homeland Security warned that the exposure of the information could lead to attacks by “violent opportunists or domestic violent extremists” or could prevent law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties.