$6,876,303.90, to be exact. That's what the Michigan Department of State Police is charging for documents that I requested via the Freedom of Information Act regarding the state's handling of federal homeland security grant money from 2002 to ... definitely a record for Mackinac Center FOIA requests. In fact, this may be a record for any FOIA request. Even the $3,438,151.95 down payment seems likely to be a speck above the average FOIA asking price.

It was named the highest in the nation by the Sunshine review.

In response Hoekstra FOIA'd the need to charge so much.

So, I followed up with another FOIA request asking for all documents that explain how the State Police and its FOIA office "reached the conclusion that filling the Mackinac Center's FOIA request of September 29, 2009 would result in a processing fee of $6,876,303.90."  

15.234 Fee; waiver or reduction; affidavit; deposit; calculation of costs; limitation; provisions inapplicable to certain public records.

Sec. 4.

(1) A public body may charge a fee for a public record search, the necessary copying of a public record for inspection, or for providing a copy of a public record. Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the fee shall be limited to actual mailing costs, and to the actual incremental cost of duplication or publication including labor, the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14. A search for a public record may be conducted or copies of public records may be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge if the public body determines that a waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because searching for or furnishing copies of the public record can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public. A public record search shall be made and a copy of a public record shall be furnished without charge for the first $20.00 of the fee for each request to an individual who is entitled to information under this act and who submits an affidavit stating that the individual is then receiving public assistance or, if not receiving public assistance, stating facts showing inability to pay the cost because of indigency.

(2) A public body may require at the time a request is made a good faith deposit from the person requesting the public record or series of public records, if the fee authorized under this section exceeds $50.00. The deposit shall not exceed 1/2 of the total fee.

(3) In calculating the cost of labor incurred in duplication and mailing and the cost of examination, review, separation, and deletion under subsection (1), a public body may not charge more than the hourly wage of the lowest paid public body employee capable of retrieving the information necessary to comply with a request under this act. Fees shall be uniform and not dependent upon the identity of the requesting person. A public body shall utilize the most economical means available for making copies of public records. A fee shall not be charged for the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14 unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs. A public body shall establish and publish procedures and guidelines to implement this subsection.

Actually, maybe the request could be made to start the clock, and "get me $100 worth please."

While the debate over information regarding the implementation of these devices is going on. It should be noted that 'permission' to use the device on your is needed according to State Police:

"The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent," it said in a statement. "The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops."

MSP officer: Drivers License and Registration please.
Driver : Um sorry, I thought I was doing the spee ...

MSP officer: Actually I pulled you over because you drifted over the line and I just wanted to see if you were ok
Driver : Oh ok, no, just a little distracted with a phone call and ...

MSP officer: May I see it?
Driver :  The?

MSP officer: The Cell phone, you said you got a call
Driver :  Well I uh

MSP officer: Are you refusing to show me your cell phone?
Driver :  No, here you go

MSP officer:  I'll be right back (taking phone with)
Driver : Wait, what

MSP officer: (as he is walking away) I'll be right back, stay in your car please
Driver : But..

Just like that.

It might well be a way they can enforce the unenforceable texting rule passed last year.  It might well be a way to determine if someone is a pervert.  It might also be a way to breach the privacy of law abiding citizens who prefer to have their communications and associations kept under their own control.  What if the driver is a reporter with protected contacts?  What about political figures?

What about the 4th amendment?

If you want to look at MY cell phone, get a warrant.

The Michigan State Police has had a reputation as a quality law enforcement agency, but in the face of this, it appears it is adopting the tactics and operandi of jack booted thugs using cover of technicality to obscure its true intention with regard to the use of such devices.  They should leave forensics in the lab or for special purposes designated with warrant and proper criminal procedure.  Further, the attempts in recent years to resist transparency is abhorrent and unacceptable.