DEPARTMENT

OF LAW

April 29, 2022

Dear Requestor:

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request #22-191; 22-196; 22-199; 22-214;

22-215; 22-216; 22-217; 22-218; 22-229; 22-230; 22-231; 22-232; 22-233;
22-235; 22-239; 22-243; 22-244; and 22-246

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request for the personnel file of
Officer Christopher Schurr. If you have requested documents in addition to the personnel file, those
documents will be retrieved, reviewed, and redacted by the Grand Rapids Police Department. We have
waived all fees related to this portion of the FOIA response.

Your request is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The documents available to respond to your
request are attached with this correspondence. Some of the documents you requested do not exist.

A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record certain legally specified information.
Your request is DENIED in part under the authority of MCL 15.243 as certain redactions have been applied
consistent with following nonexclusive FOIA Statutory Exemptions:

• MCL 15.243(1)(a), information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.
• MCL 15.243(1)(d), records or information specifically described and exempted from disclosure by
another statue.
• MCL 15.243(1)(m), frank communication. Communications and notes within a public body or
between public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely
factual materials and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action. In this
particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and
employees of public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
• MCL 15.243(1)(s)(iii), disclosure of the personal address or telephone number of active or retired
law enforcement officers or agents or a special skill they may have.
• MCL 15.243(1)(s)(iv), disclosure of the name, address or telephone number of family members,
relatives, children or parents of active or retired law enforcement officers’ agents.
• MCL 15.243(1)(s)(vii), disclosures that would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement
officers or agents or their families, relative’s children, parents, or those who furnish information
to law enforcement departments or agencies.
• MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ix), disclosure of personnel record of law enforcement agencies.
• MCL 15.243(1)(z) (z) Information that would identify or provide a means of identifying a person
that may, as a result of disclosure of the information, become a victim of a cybersecurity incident.

Additional exemptions applied pursuant to MCL 15.243(d) include but may not be limited to the following:
• Driver’s license information has been redacted per the Driver’s Privacy protection Act [18 USC §
2127-25].

300 MONROE AVENUE, N.W., GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49503 · (616) 456-3181 · FAX (616) 456-4569
April 29, 2022
Page 2

• Social Security numbers have been redacted per the Social Security Number Privacy Act,
specifically MCL 445.85.
• Requests and responses from law enforcement agencies for criminal justice information, as well
as printouts from Criminal Justice Information Systems have been removed pursuant to MCL
28.214(5) and its attendant administrative regulation, Mich. Admin. Code R 28.5208(4).
• Involuntary statements made by a law enforcement officer pursuant to MCL 15.395, MCL
15.243(d) [Disclosures by Law Enforcement Officers Act].

Regarding private information exempted by MCL 15.243(1)(a), it is the City’s position that the
public interest in the disclosure of this information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping this
information private. The release of this private information would not significantly contribute to a better
understanding of the operations of the City of Grand Rapids, which is the core purpose of the Freedom of
Information Act in this instance.

Regarding frank communications exempted by MCL 15.243(m), it is the City’s position that
disclosure of frank communications in this instance would impair the ability of the City to perform
essential governmental functions and analyze difficult issues with candor and deliberate discussion. More
specifically, the public benefits from open and honest supervisory comments to employees. Revealing
these advisory comments would stifle the important dialogue necessary for continuous improvement of
public employees. Furthermore, the advisory comments do not further the interest of FOIA in better
understanding the operations of the City of Grand Rapids. Other legitimate governmental interests in the
nondisclosure also exist.

The legal references contained in this response are intended to be as instructive as possible. The
City of Grand Rapids reserves the right to raise any other legal justifications during an appeal even if they
are not enumerated in this response.

You have certain rights to appeal the partial denial of your record request. You may either appeal
to the City Commission or commence a Kent County Circuit Court action within 180 days of this letter.
Your appeal rights and rights to damages for improper denial are specifically set out in Section 10 of the
Act. You also have certain rights to appeal a fee charged for your records request as set out in Section
10a of the Act. A copy of these sections has been enclosed so that we may comply with MCL 15.235.

A copy of the City of Grand Rapids’ Freedom of Information Act Procedures and Guidelines and
written public summary is available on the City’s website at the following location:

https://www.grandrapidsmi.gov/Directory/Administrative-Policies/Freedom-of-Information-Act-91-02.

Very truly yours,

Philip L. Strom
Deputy City Attorney – FOIA Coordinator

300 MONROE AVENUE, N.W., GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49503 · (616) 456-3181 · FAX (616) 456-4569