Judge sides with Dana Nessel, keeps secret Lee Chatfield warrants

The Office of the Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel won’t need to take any immediate action to publicly disclose search warrants and other materials affiliated with its criminal investigation into former House Speaker Lee Chatfield, an Ingham County judge ruled Tuesday morning.

The decision from Circuit Court Judge Wanda Stokes denies a request from the Detroit Free Press and Bridge Michigan to require the state’s top law enforcement officer follow any timeline and provide additional clarity in the legal fight over whether certain investigative records are public.

“I appreciate the press intervenors’ position with respect to making sure that they are properly able to inform the public and also the important work our press does for all of our citizens. This court certainly is not interested in trying to create an environment where information is being withheld from the public. That would certainly be a miscarriage of justice,” Stokes said before delivering her decision at the end of a roughly 45-minute virtual hearing.

Related:

The hearing is the latest effort by the Free Press and Bridge to obtain documents related to the Chatfield investigation. Some were previously released to the Detroit News; the Free Press and Bridge argue others should be public in accordance with state law.

Chatfield is accused of sexually assaulting his sister-in-law, including when she was a minor. He’s also under investigation for potential embezzlement, bribery and campaign finance violations, according to affidavits obtained by The Detroit News.

The Levering Republican has denied criminal misconduct, instead characterizing what happened with his sister-in-law as an affair.

Stokes determined the Free Press and Bridge did not have standing to take any legal action in the attorney general’s filings in her court. After a lower court determined certain records should be released, Nessel’s office asked Stokes to intervene and prevent disclosure of these documents.

She agreed in November, issued a sweeping order that essentially stalled all legal actions in the case, aside from Nessel’s office filing an appeal of the lower court decision. The lower court did not provide a timeline for any appeal — lawyers for the Free Press and Bridge noted this means the attorney general’s office could delay releasing documents by dragging its feet on filing its appeal.

On Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Michael Frezza confirmed the attorney general will file an appeal, but he did not know when that would happen. Stokes required Frezza to send notification to attorneys for the Free Press and Bridge when the appeal is filed.

“We’re disappointed that neither the court nor the attorney general recognized that the Legislature intended this information to be available to the public, except in limited circumstances,” said Robin Luce-Herrmann, a lawyer representing the Free Press and Bridge.

Nessel released a statement saying “the decision from Judge Stokes appropriately recognizes the importance of maintaining confidentiality during the pendency of on-going investigations.”

Nessel’s office, the Michigan State Police and unnamed federal agencies are investigating the conduct of the former speaker, according to statements and documents. The attorney general’s office says the investigation is ongoing, arguing the release of any search warrants, affidavits or comparable materials before the completion of the investigation may imperil the inquiry.

The News obtained affidavits from an Ingham County court clerk. The court stressed to the Detroit News the information was suppressed and had been released in error.

But lawyers for the Free Press and Bridge contend the attorney general’s office did not comply with specific state laws dictating how and when warrants and related affidavits can remain suppressed from public view. The law says search warrants should become public 56 days after they are issued, unless prosecutors specifically seek an extension.

A Lansing District Court judge agreed, ordering the state to release several documents. Nessel’s office asked a higher court to block that order. Circuit Court Judge Wanda Stokes agreed, issuing an indefinite stay.

Lawyers for the Free Press and Bridge wanted Stokes to revise that order, set a specific date by which Nessel’s office must file any appeal of the district court’s order to release records and for the attorney general’s team to identify any additional orders or records in the Chatfield case it wants the court to suppress.

“In short, the attorney general has acted — and continues to act — to suppress not only the limited information statutes make public, but to effectively suppress all court records and actions relating to the investigation indefinitely and perhaps permanently,” reads part of a motion filed by lawyers for the media outlets.

In response, Nessel’s office argued the news outlets do not care about the possible future ramifications of a court requiring the release of these records. Interpreting the law as suggested by lawyers for the media outlets would imperil a litany of hypothetical investigations, the office argues.

The office also successfully argued the media outlets have no legal grounds to intervene in this specific case. Stokes agreed, saying there were no grounds for “permissive intervention,” or becoming a member of this legal action.

More broadly, Nessel’s office argued a judge’s future decision to let media outlets intervene and fight for these records opens a slippery slope for bad actors masquerading as legitimate journalists down the road.

“Though the Detroit Free Press and Bridge Magazine may be considered respected media outlets, in the next search warrant matter the requestor may not be. With the proliferation of internet media outlets, a suspect’s confederate or co-conspirator may use this mechanism in the future to gather information on law enforcement’s activities,” Nessel’s office wrote in a filing before the hearing.

This is misleading and incorrect, the news outlets noted in a separate filing.

“The Michigan Legislature has provided that search warrant affidavits are public information unless certain requirements are met. Any interpretation of these statutes that results in wholesale suppression of everything related to search warrants (including for example, the suppression orders themselves) — and bars any person from challenging compliance with these statutes is of immense public importance,” the filing states.

Frezza said the records will be made public when the investigation is completed. There’s no indication when law enforcement will conclude its inquiry.