PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATOR LICENSURE ACT
Act 285 of 1965
338.840 Divulging of information; willful sale of or furnishing false information; penalty; privileged communications; notice and hearing.
Sec. 20.
(1) Any person who is or has been an employee of a licensee shall not divulge to anyone other than his or her employer or former employer, or as the employer shall direct, except as he or she may be required by law, any information acquired by him or her during his or her employment in respect to any of the work to which he or she shall have been assigned by the employer. Any employee violating the provisions of this section and any employee who willfully makes a false report to his or her employer in respect to any work is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Any principal, manager, or employee of a licensee who willfully furnishes false information to clients, or who willfully sells, divulges, or otherwise discloses to other than clients, except as may be required by law, any information acquired during employment by the client is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to summary suspension of license and revocation of license upon satisfactory proof of the offense to the department. Any communications, oral or written, furnished by a professional or client to a licensee, or any information secured in connection with an assignment for a client, is considered privileged with the same authority and dignity as are other privileged communications recognized by the courts of this state.
(3) Suspension, revocation, denial, or other action against a licensee or applicant for a license as described in section 10 shall be accompanied by notice and an opportunity for a hearing under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.
History: 1965, Act 285, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1965 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 474, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 146, Imd. Eff. May 28, 2008
Notes of Decisions
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
· cites it 2× “, Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.840 (2) (1979) ("Any communications.”
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “The defendant moved for a protective order, contending that the discovery sought by the plaintiffs was *43 prohibited by MCL 338.840, but the trial court denied the protective order and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.”
Ravary v. Reed, 415 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Reed refused to answer these interrogatories, claiming privilege under MCL 338.840; MSA 18.184(20). Plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories.”
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “MCL 338.840. Tezak does not support petitioner's argument or the trial court's ruling allowing disclosure of otherwise privileged information.”
Ana Dresaj v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“The evidence sought by plaintiff is also protected by the private investigator-client privilege found in MCL 338.840. Further, defendant argued, plaintiff had not shown a substantial need and undue hardship to overcome any privilege.”
Ana Dresaj v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“The evidence sought by plaintiff is also protected by the private investigator-client privilege found in MCL 338.840. Further, defendant argued, plaintiff had not shown a substantial need and undue hardship to overcome any privilege.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.840(1) — 2 cases
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“The defendant moved for a protective order, contending that the discovery sought by the plaintiffs was *43 prohibited by MCL 338.840, but the trial court denied the protective order and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.”
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 338.840. Tezak does not support petitioner's argument or the trial court's ruling allowing disclosure of otherwise privileged information.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.840(2) — 2 cases
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“The defendant moved for a protective order, contending that the discovery sought by the plaintiffs was *43 prohibited by MCL 338.840, but the trial court denied the protective order and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.”
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 338.840. Tezak does not support petitioner's argument or the trial court's ruling allowing disclosure of otherwise privileged information.”
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.