How to get police and traffic camera video of a crash in Michigan

The public records law that gets you the video

Michigan Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 15.231 to 15.246

5 business days, one 10-day extension

All persons except those incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities are entitled to full and complete information about the affairs of government (MCL 15.231(2)). A “public record” is any writing prepared, owned, used, possessed or retained by a public body in performing an official function, and a “writing” includes pictures, sounds, photographic films, discs, hard drives and other means of recording (MCL 15.232(i), (l)), so police and agency video is covered. The Michigan Supreme Court held in Amberg v City of Dearborn, 497 Mich 28 (2014), as the Attorney General’s FOIA Handbook summarizes it, that private surveillance video a city received as evidence in a pending misdemeanor case was a public record. Make a written request to the public body’s FOIA coordinator that describes the record well enough for the body to find it, with your complete name, address and a telephone number or email address (MCL 15.233(1), 15.235(1)); give the date, time window, location and the case number. A request sent by email or fax is not received until 1 business day after it is sent (MCL 15.235(1)). Unless you agree otherwise in writing, the body must respond within 5 business days after it receives the request by granting it, denying it in writing, granting it in part, or issuing one notice extending the time by up to 10 business days (MCL 15.235(2)); the Attorney General’s FOIA Handbook explains this as 15 business days in all with the extension, and notes that the records themselves need not be handed over within the first 5 days. A failure to respond counts as a final denial if it was willful and intentional, or if the request asked for information within the first 250 words of its body or said “FOIA,” “freedom of information” or a similar term on the envelope or in the subject line (MCL 15.235(3)). Fees are limited to actual mailing costs, the actual and most reasonably economical cost of nonpaper media such as a disc or drive, and limited labor for searching, examining, separating exempt material (for example, blurring) and duplicating, each charged at no more than the hourly wage of the lowest-paid employee capable of the work, plus up to 50% for fringe benefits; the body must itemize them, and may not charge for search, review or redaction labor unless not charging would cause unreasonably high costs that it specifically identifies (MCL 15.234(1) to (4)). It may ask for a good-faith deposit of up to half the estimated fee when the estimate exceeds $50.00, with a nonbinding estimate of when it will deliver (MCL 15.234(8)). An individual who files an affidavit of indigency gets the first $20.00 free, subject to limits (MCL 15.234(2)). For body camera video, the fee must be calculated under the same section (MCL 780.317). Every public body must make its FOIA procedures and a written public summary of them publicly available (on its website, if it has one), and may not charge fees or require deposits until it does (MCL 15.234(4)). Example, Michigan Department of Transportation: requests go by email to MDOT-FOIA@Michigan.gov or by mail to the FOIA Coordinator, Office of Communications, Michigan Department of Transportation, 425 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48933 (517-285-6968). Example, Michigan State Police: requests go through the MSP Records Request Portal (via MiLogin), by email to MSPRecords@Michigan.gov, by fax to 517-241-1935, or by mail to its Records Resource Section, P.O. Box 30634, Lansing, MI 48909.

Police body camera and dashcam video

FOIA; private-place body cam is exempt

Michigan has one statute on police recordings, the Law Enforcement Body-Worn Camera Privacy Act, effective January 8, 2018, and it covers body-worn cameras only (MCL 780.311, 780.312(a)); we found no Michigan statute specific to dashboard camera video, so dashcam video is handled under the ordinary FOIA rules and exemptions. Under the Act, a body camera recording made in a “private place” is exempt from FOIA (MCL 780.313(2)). A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, and it does not include a place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access (MCL 780.312(c)), so a crash on a public road is generally not in a private place. Even for a private-place recording, these people may request a copy: the subject of the recording; a person whose property was seized or damaged in relation to a crime the recording relates to; the parent of a subject under 18; a legal guardian; and an attorney for any of them; but not if the recording is exempt under FOIA section 13 or the Act’s own investigation and victim rules (MCL 780.314). Disclosure of any body camera recording is subject to the protections for crime victims in the listed sections of the William Van Regenmorter Crime Victim’s Rights Act (MCL 780.313(1)). Body camera video kept in connection with an ongoing criminal or internal investigation is not a public record, but only to the extent release would interfere with law enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of a fair trial, be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, reveal a confidential source or investigative techniques, endanger officers, or disclose crime victim information in violation of that Act (MCL 780.315(1)). Body camera video kept in relation to a civil action between you and the public body is not a public record and is exempt (MCL 780.315(2)); the same rule covers any record relating to a civil action between the requester and the public body (MCL 15.243(1)(v)), so if you have sued the city or county, you will need to seek the video through that lawsuit rather than FOIA. Retention: an agency must keep an “evidentiary” body camera recording (one of a crime, arrest, citation, search, use of force or confrontational encounter that may be materially useful for investigative or prosecutorial purposes) for at least 30 days from the day it was made; it must keep recordings that are the subject of an ongoing criminal or internal investigation, prosecution or civil action until the matter ends; and it must keep a recording for at least 3 years if it is relevant to a formal complaint against an officer or agency (MCL 780.312(b), 780.316(1) to (3)). The Act sets no minimum for body camera video that is not evidentiary unless it is the subject of an investigation, prosecution, civil action or formal complaint, and we found no retention statute for dashcam video, so request it within days. If a complaint comes after the retention period has run, or a recording cannot be produced because of a technical failure or human error, the Act creates no presumption that it would have supported either side (MCL 780.316(4)). Each agency using body cameras must have a written policy on their use and on keeping and disclosing the recordings (MCL 780.318); ask the agency for it.

When police can hold video back

Only if release would interfere

A public body may withhold “investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure as a public record would” interfere with law enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial administrative adjudication, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, disclose a confidential source or confidential information furnished only by one in a criminal investigation, disclose investigative techniques or procedures, endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel, or identify a party proceeding anonymously in a civil sexual misconduct case (MCL 15.243(1)(b)). Body camera video has a parallel rule for ongoing criminal and internal investigations (MCL 780.315(1)). The exemption is not automatic. The Attorney General’s FOIA Handbook summarizes Evening News Ass’n v City of Troy, 417 Mich 481 (1983): a general claim that records are part of an ongoing criminal investigation is not enough, and the public body must show factually and in detail how a particular document or category of documents fits the exemption; and Herald Co v Kalamazoo, 229 Mich App 376 (1998): the test is whether disclosure “would” (not “could”) interfere, and an investigation is not ongoing without active law enforcement investigation, even if the period of limitations is still running. If an exemption covers only part of a record, the body must separate the exempt material and release the rest (MCL 15.244(1)), and its denial notice must explain the basis for each withholding and describe what it removed (MCL 15.235(5)). Separate exemptions may still apply after a case ends: information of a personal nature whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy (MCL 15.243(1)(a)) and law enforcement records whose release would identify informants or undercover officers, among others, unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs nondisclosure (MCL 15.243(1)(s)). We found no Michigan provision that sets a date when the investigation exemption ends; if video is withheld as part of an active investigation, ask again when the case closes. Body camera video that is the subject of an ongoing criminal or internal investigation, prosecution or civil action must be kept until it ends (MCL 780.316(2)).

Do traffic cameras in Michigan record?

MDOT: not continuously recorded

MDOT’s Mi Drive page states: “Mi Drive traffic cameras provide live viewing and are not continuously recorded.” MDOT does not say on that page whether any images are ever saved, so if one of its cameras covered the crash, send MDOT’s FOIA coordinator a written request at once naming the camera, road, direction, date and time window (MDOT-FOIA@Michigan.gov, or FOIA Coordinator, Office of Communications, Michigan Department of Transportation, 425 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48933). FOIA does not require a public body to create a record that does not exist (MCL 15.233(5)); if nothing was recorded, the denial notice must certify that the record does not exist (MCL 15.235(5)(b)). Mi Drive shows MDOT’s cameras; if a city or county road commission runs a camera at the crash location, send that public body a FOIA request as well. We found no Michigan statute or MDOT page setting how long any traffic camera video is kept.

Red-light and speed cameras

Work-zone speed, bus and rail cameras

Red-light cameras: we found no Michigan statute authorizing camera enforcement of red lights at intersections, and the camera provisions we found in the Vehicle Code cover only the three programs below. Work-zone speed cameras: since 2024 PA 164 (effective April 2, 2025), beginning one year after that date MDOT may install and use automated speed enforcement systems, only through a third-party vendor, in work zones not separated from traffic by concrete barriers on MDOT roads; no more than 4 may run at once in each MDOT region, a sign must be posted 1 mile before the zone with a speed display at the camera, and a system may detect speeds only while workers are present (MCL 257.627c(1)). A driver recorded going 10 mph or more over the limit gets a written warning for a first violation, then a civil fine of up to $150.00 for a second within 3 years and up to $300.00 for a third or later; citations are mailed to the registered owner (MCL 257.627c(2), (6)). The recorded image must show the plate, the location, and the date and time (MCL 257.2c). The images and data may be used only to adjudicate the violation, are confidential and exempt from FOIA except as needed for that, may not be shared with any third party not involved in running the system, and must be destroyed once the time to contest has passed or the fine is paid (MCL 257.627c(3), (4)); we did not confirm which work zones, if any, have cameras running now. School bus stop-arm cameras: a school district may put a stop-arm camera system on its buses, run it through a vendor, and agree with police on enforcement (MCL 257.1820); the cameras must record the date, time and location and capture the vehicle, its rear plate, and at least 200 feet in front of the bus (MCL 257.1805(8)). A police agency may review the footage within 30 days after receiving it and mail a citation to the vehicle’s operator, which must include a photo or selected images and, for video, a website where it can be reviewed; the civil fine is $100.00 to $500.00 (MCL 257.682(5) to (7)), and the school district must give the footage to an investigating police agency that asks for it (MCL 257.682(4)). Railroad crossings: state, county and local road and police authorities may install unmanned traffic monitoring devices at railroad grade crossings with flashing signals and gates; images must be destroyed 90 days after final disposition of the citation (MCL 257.667a(1), (3)). Access: of these three programs, only the work-zone statute makes its images confidential. We found no statute closing stop-arm or railroad crossing footage to the public, so a written FOIA request to the school district or the road authority is the route, and the general exemptions in MCL 15.243 apply.

If your request is denied

Agency head or court within 180 days

A written denial is the public body’s final determination, and it must explain the reason, describe anything removed, and tell you your appeal rights (MCL 15.235(5)). You may then choose either route (MCL 15.240(1)). Administrative appeal: send the head of the public body (its posted FOIA procedures say whom) a written appeal that specifically states the word “appeal” and gives your reasons for reversal; within 10 business days the head must reverse, uphold, or partly reverse the denial, or under unusual circumstances extend once by up to 10 more business days (MCL 15.240(1)(a), (2)). A board or commission is not considered to have received the appeal until its first regularly scheduled meeting after you submit it (MCL 15.240(3)). Court: file a civil action to compel disclosure within 180 days after the final determination to deny, in the circuit court for a city, county or other local body, or in the Court of Claims for a state agency such as the State Police or MDOT (MCL 15.240(1)(b)). If the head upholds the denial or does not respond, you may still sue (MCL 15.240(3)). The court decides de novo, the agency bears the burden of justifying the denial, the court may view the video privately, and the case is expedited (MCL 15.240(4), (5)). If you prevail you recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements; a partial win may earn part of them; and if the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously the court must award you $1,000.00 in punitive damages on top of actual damages and fine the agency $1,000.00 (MCL 15.240(6), (7)). Fee disputes have their own route: a written fee appeal to the head of the body if its procedures provide one, then a circuit court or Court of Claims action within 45 days (MCL 15.240a). Each body has a FOIA coordinator and must post its procedures; MDOT also has a transparency liaison, Michael Frezell (517-281-6519), who helps with FOIA requests. You may want to ask a lawyer before filing suit.

What to do now

1. 1

   Send a written FOIA request today

   Email or mail the FOIA coordinator of the police or sheriff agency that responded, asking for body camera and dashcam video and naming the date, time window, location and case number.

2. 2

   Ask the agency to keep the video

   Evidentiary body camera video must be kept only 30 days unless an investigation or case is pending, and dashcam video has no state minimum. Say in writing that you are requesting it.

3. 3

   Ask MDOT and the road agency about cameras

   MDOT says Mi Drive cameras are not continuously recorded. Write to MDOT-FOIA@Michigan.gov anyway, and post the crash on the bounty board for nearby dashcam and business footage.

4. 4

   Appeal a denial in writing

   Send the agency head a letter that says “appeal” and why, or go to court within 180 days: circuit court for a local agency, the Court of Claims for a state agency.

Frequently asked questions