Law enforcement: records; law enforcement officer separation of service record act; revise. Amends secs. 1, 2, 3 & 5 of 2017 PA 128 (MCL 28.561 et seq.); designates secs. 1 & 2 as art 1 & secs. 3 - 5 as art. 2 & adds arts. 3 & 4.
Summary
SB 339 revises Michigan’s law enforcement officer separation-of-service record law and expands it into a broader “law enforcement officer service records act.” The bill requires a former employing law enforcement agency to create and maintain a separation-of-service record for officers who leave employment, including the reasons for separation and any disciplinary process or investigation active within the prior year. It also requires the agency to notify the separated officer when the record is finalized, allow the officer to review it, and provide a process for disputing inaccuracies or attaching a written statement of disagreement.
The bill adds a second record system for officers who are still employed but are in the process of leaving for another agency. Under this provisional service record process, a current employing agency may create a record covering recent disciplinary, performance, or investigative matters once the officer signs a waiver tied to a conditional offer of employment. The bill also requires a prospective employer to obtain the relevant record before hiring the officer, and it gives the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards authority to request copies of either type of record to check compliance with licensing standards.
Impact
The bill amends 2017 PA 128 and reorganizes it into four articles, while adding new duties for law enforcement agencies, prospective employers, and the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards. It expands recordkeeping obligations beyond the existing employment history record by creating mandatory separation-of-service records and optional provisional service records, sets deadlines for finalizing and disclosing those records, and establishes a dispute process for officers to challenge disputed information. It also provides civil immunity for good-faith disclosures and makes hiring contingent on receipt of the required separation record for covered officers.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as an accountability and transparency reform for law enforcement hiring and licensing, with procedural protections for officers to review and contest records. The overall tone of the legislation is administrative and regulatory rather than punitive.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of information included in the records, especially disciplinary processes, investigations, and performance plans active within the prior year, and the extent to which those records must be shared with prospective employers. Law enforcement agencies may view the new deadlines and mandatory disclosure requirements as burdensome, while officers may be concerned about fairness, accuracy, and the impact of disputed allegations on future employment. The bill addresses some of those concerns by requiring notice, review rights, a correction/disclaimer process, and the ability to attach a written statement of disagreement, but it still requires hiring agencies to obtain the records before hiring covered officers.