LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – If you’ve ever chatted with an investigator from Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office, you might have been added to their audio collection. According to Detroit Free Press columnist M.L. Elrick, Nessel’s team has adopted a routine procedure of recording phone calls without informing the callers.
How does he know? Because they did it to him. This revelation came to light as part of the discovery process in the prosecution of Michigan’s so-called “fake electors,” when materials compiled by the AG’s office were turned over to defense attorneys.
The press under surveillance.
MORE NEWS: Federal Money Allowed Record Spending By K-12 Schools in 2023-24
Elrick had been contacted by one of Nessel’s special agents, seeking additional information about a column he had written about Stanley Grot, who was one of the 16 Republican electors that the state was investigating, looking into possible felonies committed when they cast Michigan’s electoral votes in the 2020 election for Donald Trump.
The agent asked Elrick if he knew more about Grot than he reported on. Elrick answered, “Reporters don’t like to be witnesses. So we refer people to what we published.” They had a longer conversation about some information Elrick was seeking about Lee Chatfield and later found out that the whole conversation had been recorded.
By early March of this year, Elrick found himself in court covering Lee Chatfield’s preliminary examination. Chatfield, a former Michigan House Speaker, was charged in April 2024 with 13 felony counts, including conducting a criminal enterprise and embezzlement, for allegedly misusing political and taxpayer funds for personal expenses. During the proceedings, Elrick discovered that Detroit News Political Editor Chad Livengood had also been recorded.
Despite Elrick and Livengood being reporters – and not suspects or witnesses with any cases, their conversations were still recorded, a move that some experts argue erodes public trust in law enforcement. While Michigan law permits one-party consent recordings, the ethical implications of recording journalists and sources without disclosure have sparked concerns about transparency and the chilling effect such actions might have on cooperation with investigators.
AG’s office defends recordings, dismisses ethical concerns.
This court discovery led to Elrick contacting the AG’s office to find out if the AG has guidelines for when investigators record conversations and whether AC employees are “surreptitiously” recording the public.
Kimberly Bush, director of Nessel’s Office of Public Information and Education said in an email statement that it was “standard operating procedure” for the Department of Investigators to record conversations. Elrick tried to get more information from the AG’s office about how long the policy has been in place, ethical ramifications and “how it might have a chilling effect on people investigators want to speak with who might not talk to them because they don’t want to be recorded.”
MORE NEWS: Detroit’s Election Drama: Black Activist Crying Foul Over Election Fraud
Elrick got an email back from Governor Whitmer’s Press Secretary Danny Wimmer after Elrick sought more information on the office’s practice of secretly recording phone calls. The email said, in part, “Recording phone calls conducted during the course of an investigation is a standard investigative practice not unique to our agency, investigators, or office. Investigators from all agencies should be expected to document investigative efforts; ours do so and this does not present any ethical concerns known to our office.” Wimmer added that participants in investigations understand their discussions will be documented, including with recordings.
However, in Elrick’s Detroit Free Press report about being recorded, he said that he definitely was not under the impression that he was being recorded or that any contents would be submitted as “evidence” in a case.
Elrick explains in his report, “Michigan is what’s called a ‘one-party state,’ which means if you are involved in a conversation, you generally can record it without informing the other person. I say ‘generally,’ because there is a lot of debate about this. I’ve heard lawyers argue that both parties to the conversation must be in Michigan, or at least another ‘one-party’ state, for the recording to be legal. And there is also something called the ‘expectation of privacy’ that complicates matters.”
He wrote that while the state might not be breaking the law, they are exhibiting “bad manners” and a lack of “common decency.”
Selective recording.
During the Chatfield hearing, AG special agent Robert Menard justified recording the Detroit News’ Livengood by stating he was afraid Livengood wouldn’t speak with him otherwise. However, the same agent acknowledged that he chose not to record some interviews with key witnesses in another case, raising questions about selective application of the policy.
Legal and law enforcement experts have warned that such undisclosed recordings undermine trust and may discourage individuals, including reporters and potential witnesses, from engaging with investigators. Critics argue that if secret recordings become routine, it could deter journalists from seeking or sharing information with authorities, ultimately obstructing efforts to uncover the truth.
Silence from the spokespeople who are supposed to speak.
When pressed by Elrick, who wanted more answers and also wanted a human being to talk to about the recordings, Wimmer said, “We will not be facilitating an interview on this subject.”
So while the Michigan AG’s office has no problem recording reporters without their knowledge, they’re not nearly as eager to answer questions about it. Transparency? Ethics? Public trust? Those concerns get the same treatment as an unwanted phone call – ignored, dismissed, and sent straight to voicemail.
