LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The Michigan Supreme Court recently passed a significant rule change regarding the handling of felony records. The amendment stipulates that felony records will now be confined to the court in which the case was last heard.

This means that such records could be found either in the district court or the circuit court, but not in both as was previously the case.

Rule goes into effect this summer.

MORE NEWS: Give a Pet a Home for the Holidays at Michigan’s Reduced-Fee Adoption Event

Set to take effect on July 2nd across Michigan’s courthouses, the new rules aim to streamline the process by centralizing records in one location.

Proponents argue that consolidating records will reduce confusion and increase accessibility for individuals seeking information.

Tom Boyd, a former Ingham County judge and current administrator for the State Court Administrative Office, asserts that the previous system required a deep understanding of the legal process, making it challenging for the general public to access court records effectively.

Critics point out a lack of accessibility in the future.

However, this change has sparked concerns from various quarters. Retiring Justice David Viviano expressed apprehension about potential disruptions to Michigan’s longstanding case management system. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining accessibility, especially if the relevant records are readily available in the local court.

In his opposition to the rule, he wrote, “I see no good reason to force individuals wishing to access information about a felony case to obtain that information from the circuit court. If the case is public and the local court has the relevant records or information sought, the public should have a right to access it at that court.”

The press isn’t happy about the change.

The Michigan Press Association also voiced worries, suggesting that the rule might excessively limit access to court records. Additionally, Detroit News Editor and Publisher Gary Miles and Detroit Free Press Executive Editor Jim Schaefer are scheduled to meet with Tom Boyd to discuss these concerns further.

MORE NEWS: Michigan’s Plan for Free Preschool Could Send Private Childcare to Timeout – Permanently

Herschel Fink, the general counsel representing the Detroit Free Press, expressed concern that the rule may contradict established case law from both the U.S. Supreme Court and Michigan courts, which upholds the principle that court records should be accessible to the public.

Critics argue that requiring individuals to access felony records in circuit courts, rather than their local district courts, could create logistical challenges, particularly for those who rely on the district court’s proximity.

State Bar of Michigan supports rule but is skeptical.

In June, the State Bar of Michigan expressed overall support for the rule mandating the transfer of the entire district court file to the circuit court. However, it raised concerns about the potential burden on prosecutors and defense attorneys in accessing case information due to the nonpublic designation of files in district court.

Peter Cunningham, executive director for the State Bar of Michigan wrote, “Strictly in terms of the population of individuals impacted by such a broad approach, the unintended, negative consequences of this proposed amendment far outweigh the benefits it would provide.”

Rule came about because of Clean Slate legislation.

The genesis of this rule change traces back to the enactment of the Clean Slate package in 2020, which expanded expungement opportunities for various offenses.

With the deployment of an automatic expungement tool by the Michigan State Police, numerous convictions were automatically set aside, prompting the need to adjust court record protocols. The intention is to make records nonpublic following expungement, but the current system, which handles expungements at the circuit court level, complicates this process.

Court attempting to centralize files to help with expungement laws.

To address this, court officials sought to centralize case filings to ensure compliance with expungement laws. The proposed rule aims to confine all cases to one court, simplifying the process of making records nonpublic. Essentially, once a case is bound over to the circuit court, all records from the district court become nonpublic.

However, concerns persist regarding the practical implications of this rule change. Some argue that it will burden court staff and could hinder access to information for prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Critics also suggest that the rule may create confusion and additional work for clerks, as they navigate between district and circuit courts.

Despite these concerns, the Michigan Supreme Court remains firm in its decision, emphasizing that the rule will only apply to active or future cases.

While public feedback during the rule-making process was limited with only three public comments and a public hearing that garnered no testimony from the public, dissenting voices highlighting potential challenges and unintended consequences are only coming to light now that the rule has been put in place.