Resident appeals for jail phone records in child-contact case; board grants extension

Holly Fletcher, a local family member, told the Livingston County Board of Commissioners on June 22 that she was seeking confirmation of whether her 5-year-old niece, identified in the record as Alicia, had phone or video contact with an inmate named Tony despite court no-contact orders. Fletcher said she did not need the call content, only verification that contact occurred so she could ask a judge to enforce the order.

The sheriff's office responded that releasing inmate phone calls to members of the public is not its practice unless compelled by a court order or tied to an active criminal investigation. "Historically we do not release jail phone calls, nor have we ever released jail phone calls for really any reason other than a criminal investigation or if there is a court order," the under sheriff said, adding that calls involving juveniles would be redacted if disclosed.

County legal counsel told the board that subpoenas or court orders are the standard, appropriate mechanisms for obtaining such records. "A criminal or civil subpoena likely is what the sheriff's office would be looking for here in order to be able to produce these records," counsel said.

During extended questioning, commissioners and staff discussed alternatives, including prosecutor involvement and inter-county cooperation with Oakland County (where some alleged incidents occurred). Undersheriff representatives and the prosecutor's office said they would cooperate with a court order or a formal request from another jurisdiction. Counsel advised that even if Livingston County located responsive material, redactions and statutory exemptions would need legal review before any release.

Fletcher told the board she had already sought records in Oakland County and said those attempts had been denied; she asked merely that the county confirm whether the child had contact with the inmate on specific dates. The sheriff's office noted the practical difficulty and possible cost of reviewing recordings for specific time windows and warned that identifying a juvenile on a recording would be handled carefully under state law.

After discussion, Fletcher and the county agreed to an extension of the FOIA appeal and to work with the prosecutor's office and the sheriff on next steps, with the appeal continued to July 13, 2026. The board asked Fletcher to work with prosecutors to provide precise dates, times and phone numbers to focus any necessary review and to update the clerk on progress before the July 13 meeting.

What happens next: The county said it will cooperate with appropriate court processes and the prosecutor's office; the FOIA appeal will be revisited at the July 13 board meeting unless the requester notifies the clerk that the matter has been resolved beforehand.