CORRECTIONS CODE OF 1953
Act 232 of 1953
791.229 Privileged or confidential communications; access to records, reports, and case histories; confidential relationship inviolate.
Sec. 29.
Except as otherwise provided by law, all records and reports of investigations made by a probation officer, and all case histories of probationers shall be privileged or confidential communications not open to public inspection. Judges and probation officers shall have access to the records, reports, and case histories. The probation officer, the assistant director of probation, or the assistant director's representative shall permit the attorney general, the auditor general, and law enforcement agencies to have access to the records, reports, and case histories and shall permit designated representatives of a private contractor that operates a facility or institution that houses prisoners under the jurisdiction of the department to have access to the records, reports, and case histories pertaining to prisoners assigned to that facility. The relation of confidence between the probation officer and probationer or defendant under investigation shall remain inviolate.
History: 1953, Act 232, Eff. Oct. 2, 1953 ;-- Am. 1979, Act 89, Eff. Apr. 1, 1980 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 512, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 1999 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 248, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 2010 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 599, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013
Compiler's Notes:
Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Act 210 of 1979 provide:
"P.A. 1979, No. 89, section 4, amended; effective date.
"Section 2. The enacting section of Act No. 89 of the Public Acts of 1979, is amended to read as follows:
"Section 4. This amendatory act shall take effect April 1, 1980.
"Effective date of P.A. 1979, Nos. 81 and 89, in certain counties; funds for probation services.
"Section 3. The provisions of Act Nos. 81 and 89 of the Public Acts of 1979 shall not take effect in a county with a population of 1.5 million or more prior to a majority vote of the elected members of the county's board of commissioners to place the question of the creation of a charter commission under the terms of enacted Senate Bill No. 652 before the county electorate. Subsequent to the above action by the board of commissioners, funds appropriated for probation services for a county with a population of 1.5 million or more shall become immediately effective, and shall be retroactive to the extent of the funds provided.
"Implementation of P.A. 1979, Nos. 81 and 89; effect of refusal to provide probation support costs.
"Section 4. Implementation of Act Nos. 81 and 89 of the Public Acts of 1979 shall not be effective in counties which refuse to provide probation support costs as required in those acts."
PopularName Notes:
Department of Corrections Act
Notes of Decisions
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992).
· cites it 22× “In this interlocutory appeal arising out of a civil suit for defamation, we must decide whether a probation report concerning one of the plaintiffs, prepared in connection with an unrelated criminal matter, is absolutely privileged under MCL 791.229; MSA 28.2299, and therefore…”
People v. Smith, 378 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 6× “" MCL 791.229; MSA 28.2299. This statutory scheme suggests that, while judges and probation officers are expected to interact, the probation officer should receive immediate supervision from the Department of Corrections rather than from individual judges.”
People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Howe v Detroit Free Press, supra , correctly finds implied waiver *684 when the plaintiff in a defamation suit invokes MCL 791.229; MSA 28.2299 in an attempt to shield evidence that might establish the truth of the publication.”
People v. Malkowski, 188 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. 1971).
· cites it 4× “" In addition to providing for access by judges, probation officers and law enforcement agencies, the statute concludes by stating: "The legislative intent is that the relation of confidence between the probation officer and probationer or defendant under investigation shall…”
People v. Adamski, 497 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“788(10)(1), admissible to show the complainant’s bias, ulterior motive, or prior false accusations); People v Hooper, 157 Mich App 669 ; 403 NW2d 605 (1987), and People v Rohn, 98 Mich App 593 ; 296 NW2d 315 (1980) (witness’ prior inconsistent statements from presentence…”
Havens v. Roberts, 360 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “MCL 791.229; MSA 28.2299. Nationwide’s allegation,, however, raises factual questions which make the grant of summary judgment improper.”
People v. Hooper, 403 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court, with directions to retain jurisdiction while remanding the case to the Otsego Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s claim that a defense witness was intimidated from testifying by the witness’ probation…”
Jilek v. Stockson, 796 N.W.2d 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“The Legislature has also established statutory privileges with respect to probation reports, MCL 791.229; accountant-client communications, MCL 339.”
Baker v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 608 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“The plaintiff asserted a privilege for probation records under MCL 791.229; MSA 28.2299. Howe, supra, 207 .”
People v. Terry Burton, 253 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“The statute in question, MCLA 791.229; MSA 28.2299, reads as follows: "All records and reports of investigations made by probation officers, whether state or local, for courts of criminal jurisdiction in cases referred for such investigation by such courts, and all case…”
Peters v. Bay Fresh Start, Inc, 411 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“Bauer’s argument rests largely on MCL 791.229; MSA 28.2299, which provides: All records and reports of investigations made by a probation officer, and all case histories of probationers shall be privileged or confidential communications not open to public inspection.”
People v. Sallee, 234 N.W.2d 180 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied defendant's motion for leave to appeal. See People v Sallee, 392 Mich 794 (1974).”
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.