Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foia Signal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines to affirm FOIA denial over Signal app; public evidence and calls for further review follow
Summary
The Battle Creek City Commission voted not to affirm a prior denial of FOIA request 25-1183 seeking names of detectives who used the Signal messaging app; the motion to uphold the denial failed after public testimony and discussion.
The Battle Creek City Commission considered Resolution 132, which would have affirmed the denial of FOIA request number 25-1183. The FOIA request sought a list of names of Battle Creek police detectives who used the Signal messaging app during investigations. The motion to affirm the denial failed.
Autumn Smith, who identified herself as the requester, told the commission she had submitted FOIA 25-1183 and alleged the city denied the request by asserting no such records existed. She said she possessed “direct evidence” — printed Signal chat messages — naming members of the detective bureau and showing instructions to delete the chats, and she asked the commission to investigate and to direct the city manager and FOIA coordinator to re-evaluate the denial.
“They lied twice about the existence of public records,” Smith said in public comment, adding that the Signal chats she provided included participant names and explicit messages instructing deletion of a chat labeled “d b chat delete.” She read aloud a list of names she said appeared in those chats: “Chris Rabbit, Josh Chapman, Ben Clark, Stephanie Estree, Trevor Gravet, Mike Harrison, Trevor Hoard, Brandon Huggett, Jamie LaPratt, Aaron Smith, Tyler Sutherland, Tom Weierbaum.”
City officials told the commission the original FOIA request asked specifically for a maintained list of detectives who use the Signal app. The city attorney explained that no such list is maintained by the police department, and that a FOIA would obligate the city to disclose existing records but does not require the city to create a new compilation. The city attorney said the requester may file a more specifically worded request and that the commission could, if it chose, extend its consideration under the statutory FOIA extension process.
Commissioner Lacoste said the packet submitted by Autumn Smith gave him reservations and said he would vote against affirming the denial. Several commissioners said they needed more time and more information; Commissioner Morris requested disaggregated reporting and evidence. The clerk read the resolution and a motion to affirm the denial was moved and supported; after discussion the clerk announced, “The motion failed.”
Other residents and attendees urged investigation. An attendee who identified himself as Alex explained Signal’s technical behavior to the commission, saying it is end-to-end encrypted and can be set to auto-delete messages, which he said can make public‑record preservation difficult. “Public servants using this app to discuss public business, is essentially intentionally obfuscating what they are talking about from the public,” Alex said.
Why it matters: The exchange raises two distinct civic issues: whether a particular kind of record (a maintained list of users) exists and must be produced under FOIA, and whether the use of ephemeral, encrypted messaging by public employees warrants policy review to ensure compliance with record‑retention obligations.
Next steps: Commissioners discussed possible follow-up, including requesting more investigation, asking for a written legal opinion from the city attorney, and the possibility of extending the statutory response deadline to permit additional review. The FOIA requester said she would provide her packet to the city attorney and sought a public explanation for the denials.
