People v. Harris; People v. Little; and People v. Hughes
Docket Nos. 149872, 149873, and 150042
Trial Lawyers’ Bottom Line: The DLEOA protects both truthful and untruthful involuntary statements from being used against officers in a later trial.
It is not often that the Supreme Court expresses its disapproval of a statute passed by the Legislature. But that’s exactly what happened in People v. Hughes. This case is about the vast protection afforded to police officers under Michigan’s Disclosures by Law Enforcement Officers Act (“the DLEOA”—MCL 15.393).
In 2009, Officer Hughes beat up Mr. Hodges-Lamar. Officers Harris and Little watched as it happened and did nothing to stop Hughes. After Hodges-Lamar filed a complaint with the Detroit Police Department, the Department conducted an internal investigation. As a part of the investigation, the Department interviewed the three officers.
Before the interview, the officers were warned that anything they said could result in dismissal from department. When questioned, Hughes denied he beat up Hodges-Lamar. Harris and Little also lied. But a video of the assault surfaced later. And all three were charged with obstruction of justice (among other charges).
At trial, the court dismissed the obstruction of justice charges because the court said the statements were protected by the DLEOA. The DLEOA states that “information” derived from an involuntary statement made by police officers can’t be used against the officers in a criminal proceeding. The Circuit Court affirmed. But the Court of Appeals said that a lie is not “information,” and therefore, a lie is not protected by the DLEOA. The Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Zahra authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Young and Justices McCormack, Bernstein, and Larsen. The majority’s decision was completely based in the text: what is “involuntary” and what is “information.” The majority said that a statement compelled under threat of dismissal from employment is an “involuntary statement.” And the majority also said that “information” includes both truthful and untruthful statements.
Much of the majority’s analysis rests on the fact that the statute does not qualify “information.” But the Legislature has passed other statutes that refer to “truthful information.” Thus, “information” on its own seemingly encompasses both truthful and untruthful statements. So the officers’ false statements couldn’t be used against them, and because the obstruction of justice charges rested solely on these statements, the charges are dismissed.
The majority wrote that the goal of the DLEOA is to encourage officers’ participation in internal investigations. To pursue this end, the statute protects false statements, perjury, lying, etc. The Court took multiple opportunities to express that protecting officers from having their lies used against them is “unpalatable.” But the Court expressed a commitment to the text rather than judicial rewriting of statutes. The Court recognized this is vast protection for police officers, but stresses that this is what the Legislature intended to do when it wrote “information” without a qualification.
Justice Markman dissented, joined by Justice Viviano. The dissenters wrote that false statements couldn’t be “information,” so they are not precluded by the DLEOA. The dissent’s argument is that the definition of “information” is most commonly associated with “knowledge,” and “knowledge” is associated with truths. Thus, the dissent would have reinstated the obstruction of justice charges.
Also, the Court did not overturn the Court of Appeals decision that the Fifth Amendment does not protect false statements in Michigan. This updated the U.S. Supreme Court’s Garrity rule in our state.
Interestingly, both the majority and the dissent used the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). This is an interesting development in the Court’s textual analysis. Using corpus linguistics is something that has been pushed for by Justice Lee of the Utah Supreme Court. There will be a separate post on how to use the COCA later this month.