Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 338 / Act 295 of 1972
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.1728 (2026)

Unlawful disclosures; exceptions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

FORENSIC POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS ACT


Act 295 of 1972


338.1728 Unlawful disclosures; exceptions.

Sec. 28.

    (1)  Any person who is or has been an employee of a licensed examiner shall not divulge to anyone other than his employer or former employer, or as the employer shall direct, except as he may be required by law, any information acquired by him during his employment in respect to any of the work to which he shall have been assigned by the employer. Any employee violating the provisions of this section and any employee who makes a false report to his employer in respect to any work is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    (2) Any principal, manager or employee of a licensed examiner who furnishes false information to clients, or who sells, divulges or otherwise discloses to other than clients, except as he may be required by law, any information acquired by him or them during employment by the client is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subjected to immediate suspension of license by the board and revocation of license upon satisfactory proof of the offense. Any communications, oral or written, furnished by a professional man or client to a licensed examiner, or any information secured in connection with an assignment for a client, shall be deemed privileged with the same authority and dignity as are other privileged communications recognized by the courts of this state.

    (3) Any recipient of information, report or results from a polygraph examiner, except for the person tested, shall not provide, disclose or convey such information, report or results to a third party except as may be required by law and the rules promulgated by the board in accordance with section 7 of this act.

History: 1972, Act 295, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of powers and duties of certain occupational functions, boards, and commissions from the Department of Licensing and Regulation to the Department of Commerce, see E.R.O. No. 1991-9, compiled at MCL 338.3501 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    For abolishment of the state board of forensic polygraph examiners and transfer of its powers and duties to the department of labor and economic growth, see E.R.O. No. 2007-18, compiled at MCL 445.2024.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2013 · leading case: King v. Michigan State Police Dep't, 841 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King v. Michigan State Police Dep't, 841 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “8; and MCL 338.1728. In addition, documents presently known to, and protected from disclosure under the seal of, the 48th *170 District Court, the Hon.”
In Re Petition of Delaware, 283 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “" It is clear that the lower court based its decision in part on the privilege established by MCL 338.1728; MSA 18.186(28), which provides in part: "Any communications, oral or written, furnished by a professional man or client to a licensed examiner, or any information secured…”
Ravary v. Reed, 415 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 338.1728(2); MSA 18.186(28X2). 19 Four states have statutes making it unlawful for a private *453 detective to divulge information acquired on behalf of a client except as he may be required by law so to do.”
People v. Marcy, 283 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “” It is clear that the lower court based its decision in part on the privilege established by MCL 338.1728; MSA 18.186(28), which provides in part: "Any communications, oral or written, furnished by a professional man or client to a licensed examiner, or any information secured…”
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., 295 F.R.D. 517 (N.D. Fla. 2013). “MCL 338.1728(2); MSA 18.186(28)(2). 415 N.”
Miranda v. Consol. Rail Corp., 571 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Mich. 1983). · cites it 5× “§ 338.1728 provides in pertinent part: (2) .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.1728(1) — 1 case
Miranda v. Consol. Rail Corp., 571 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Mich. 1983). “§ 338.1728 provides in pertinent part: (2) .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.1728(2) — 3 cases
King v. Michigan State Police Dep't, 841 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “8; and MCL 338.1728. In addition, documents presently known to, and protected from disclosure under the seal of, the 48th *170 District Court, the Hon.”
Ravary v. Reed, 415 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 338.1728(2); MSA 18.186(28X2). 19 Four states have statutes making it unlawful for a private *453 detective to divulge information acquired on behalf of a client except as he may be required by law so to do.”
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., 295 F.R.D. 517 (N.D. Fla. 2013). “MCL 338.1728(2); MSA 18.186(28)(2). 415 N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.1728(3) — 1 case
King v. Michigan State Police Dep't, 841 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “8; and MCL 338.1728. In addition, documents presently known to, and protected from disclosure under the seal of, the 48th *170 District Court, the Hon.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.