RIS-Page 2
Due to the fact the state maintains its own criminal justice information systems, the state is required to promulgate
rules regarding access and dissemination (MCL 28.214). Many of the rules also pertain to record responsibility and
data quality. While several rules are duplicates of federal policy and/or rule, these rules are necessary to provide
guidance to agencies that access state systems but do not qualify for access to the federal systems, and because federal
policy and regulation purposely leaves many decisions to the individual state.
The rules allow access by an “an agency authorized by statute,” and “and agency, entity, or person approved by the
CSA/CSO for public safety purposes.” This allows access to the state systems and state information by agencies and
entities that would not otherwise qualify for access to the federal system. This conflicts with federal policies and
regulation (28 CFR Part 20) which limits system access to criminal justice agencies, and criminal history record
access to criminal justice agencies for criminal justice purposes.
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location, topography,
natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.
As a part of the rule drafting process, surveys were sent to the states of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin (the Great Lakes region). Four of the five states responded (Illinois did not respond). In comparison to the
four states that responded, Michigan’s proposed rules are either in-line or less burdensome with respect to access to
“criminal justice information systems” and “criminal justice information.”
For example, Michigan’s proposed rules are in-line with Indiana and Minnesota in that access to “criminal justice
information” is not restricted to criminal justice purposes. Indiana, like Michigan’s proposed rules, allows limited
access to “criminal justice information systems” and “criminal justice information” for certain non-criminal justice
agencies for certain non-criminal justice purposes. Additionally, like Michigan’s proposed rules, Indiana allows a
private citizen limited access to “criminal justice information” about him/herself. Conversely, Michigan’s proposed
rules are less burdensome than those of Ohio and Wisconsin, as Ohio and Wisconsin do not allow access to “criminal
justice information systems” and “criminal justice information” by non-criminal justice agencies for non-criminal
justice purposes. Additionally, Ohio and Wisconsin do not allow a private citizen access to “criminal justice
information” even in a limited basis, as Michigan’s proposed rules allow.
Michigan’s proposed rules do not exceed the standards of the comparison states.
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out of
the deviation.
The proposed rules do not exceed the standards of any similarly situated states.
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rules.
There are no known laws, rules, or other legal requirements that overlap or conflict with the proposed rules.
A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and local laws
applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of the efforts undertaken
by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.
The rule set was compared to federal regulations of the same activity or subject matter. Due to the fact the state
maintains its own criminal justice information systems, the state is required to promulgate rules regarding access and
dissemination (MCL 28.214). Many of the rules also pertain to record responsibility and data quality. While several
rules are duplicates of federal policy and/or rule, these rules are necessary to provide guidance to agencies that access
state systems but do not qualify for access to the federal systems, and because federal policy and regulation purposely
leaves many decisions to the individual state.
4. If MCL 24.232(8) applies and the proposed rules are more stringent than the applicable federally mandated
standard, a statement of specific facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more stringent
rules and an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the more stringent standards is
required.
MCL 24.232(8) is not applicable.
5. If MCL 24.232(9) applies and the proposed rules are more stringent than the applicable federal standard, either
the statute that specifically authorizes the more stringent rules or a statement of the specific facts that establish
the clear and convincing need to adopt the more stringent rules and an explanation of the exceptional
circumstances that necessitate the more stringent standards is required.
MCL 24.245(3)