05/01/2026
From Joseph Hendee :
"Circuit Court Judge Sara S. Lisznyai dismissed all charges against Stephanie Scott (and co-defendant Stefanie Lambert) in the Hillsdale County case (File No. 25-49-6230-FH). 
The Brief in Support of the Motion to Quash and Dismiss (from the Kallman Legal Group) makes a strong, multi-layered argument that the District Court’s bindover was legally flawed. The Circuit Court apparently agreed after reviewing the motion, the preliminary exam transcripts, the District Court Opinion (Exhibit A), and the parties’ arguments.
Core Arguments That Likely Carried the Day
The brief systematically dismantles the prosecution’s case, which rested on interpreting MCL 168.509gg(1) (voter registration data exempt from FOIA disclosure) as creating a broad confidentiality mandate that made any sharing of Electronic Poll Book (EPB) data on a flash drive “unauthorized” and criminal. Key points include:
No “Confidentiality” Requirement in MCL 168.509gg(1): The statute uses FOIA-specific language (“exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act” and “shall not release a copy”). It does not use the word “confidential” (unlike subsection (3) for preregistrants or other Election Law sections like MCL 168.46, 168.499b, etc.). The Legislature knows how to impose confidentiality when it wants to; courts cannot add words it omitted. People v Wood (2020) and plain language canons support this. 
FOIA Exemption ≠ Blanket Ban or Criminal Prohibition: Michigan Supreme Court precedent (Tobin v Michigan Civil Service Commission, 1982; State Employees Ass’n v Dep’t of Management & Budget, 1987) holds that FOIA exemptions authorize (but do not require) nondisclosure in the FOIA context they do not create freestanding confidentiality rules or criminal liability outside it. No FOIA request was involved here. 
Clerk’s Statutory Authority Under MCL 168.520: As the elected township clerk and custodian of election records, Scott had the “power and duty to make a full investigation” of suspected illegal/fraudulent registrations (including duplicates in the Qualified Voter File). Sharing the EPB data with her attorney (Lambert) and forensic examiner (Benjamin Cotton) for legitimate analysis was a lawful exercise of that duty not “unauthorized access.” The statute permits (but does not require) involving police or appointing assistant examiners; it does not limit other reasonable investigative steps. 
USB Flash Drive ≠ “Computer,” “Computer System,” or “Computer Program” Under MCL 752.795: The computer crimes statutes target hacking, intrusion, or malicious code not passive data storage/transfer on removable media. The definitions in MCL 752.792 require active computation or instruction ex*****on; a thumb drive does not qualify. Providing the same data on paper would clearly not trigger the statute.
Derivative Counts Fail: Conspiracy (MCL 750.157a), Using a Computer to Commit a Crime (MCL 752.796), and Misconduct in Office (MCL 750.505) all depend on an underlying unlawful act. No confidentiality violation or unauthorized access means no predicate crime. The brief also notes the lack of any “corrupt intent” finding for misconduct in office (People v Perkins, 2003), which requires depravity or taint beyond mere disagreement over procedure. Additional Points: Rule of lenity (ambiguities in penal statutes resolved for the defendant); the recent administrative rule change (Mich. Admin. Code R 168.42) suggesting no prior absolute prohibition; and absurd results if clerks cannot consult counsel/experts on election duties without facing felonies.
The District Court had bound Scott over on four felonies after a multi-day preliminary exam, but the Circuit Court reviews bindovers de novo on legal questions (statutory interpretation) and for abuse of discretion on facts. The brief highlighted clear legal errors in how the lower court read MCL 168.509gg and related provisions.
Context and Outcome
This case stemmed from Scott’s concerns about potential voter registration irregularities in Adams Township while serving as clerk. She provided EPB data to her attorney for forensic review amid those duties. The Attorney General’s office pursued charges under computer-crime and misconduct statutes. The motion to quash argued this was an overcriminalization of a clerk performing her statutory investigative role. 
Judge Lisznyai’s dismissal aligns with the brief’s emphasis on strict statutory construction, separation of powers (courts cannot rewrite statutes to add criminal prohibitions), and protecting elected officials’ ability to investigate election integrity issues without fear of felony prosecution for good faith consultation with experts.
Note: Court outcomes can involve additional procedural steps (e.g., possible appeal by the prosecution), but the information indicates full dismissal of the charges today. The detailed brief shared was a well crafted, precedent heavy filing that directly addressed the weaknesses in the bindover."
