Michigan Red Flag Law Data Becomes Inaccessible to Public After Reporting Change

Michigan Red Flag Law Data Becomes Inaccessible to Public After Reporting Change

LANSING — A significant change in how Michigan courts report data on Extreme Risk Protection Orders, commonly known as "red flag law" cases, has made it difficult for the public, researchers, and even state agencies to access detailed information on firearm confiscations across the state.

The Michigan State Police last week denied a public records request from The Detroit News seeking a detailed, anonymized database of the orders and the circumstances leading to their issuance for 2025. While the state provided 2024 data to the newspaper last year, they refused the new request because of a change that requires court systems to report their cases directly into the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), which is inaccessible to the public.

How the Data Became Opaque

The Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, a two-year-old statute often referred to as the "red flag law," allows police to confiscate the firearms of individuals believed to be a risk to themselves or others. The law took effect on February 13, 2024, and has since become a controversial policy tool in Michigan.

According to the most recent annual report from the State Court Administrative Office, 514 petitions were filed under the state's red flag law in 2025, representing roughly a 31% increase from the 10 months the act was in place in 2024. Of those 514 requests, 407 were granted, 93 were dismissed or denied by a judge, and 10 were dismissed or withdrawn by a petitioner.

The results of the other four cases were not available in the report. While the report provides some demographic information on the race, gender, and age of individuals involved, the data is incomplete — with the race of 228 people subject to an ERPO marked as "unknown," the gender of 195 ERPO recipients unknown, and the age of 193 marked as unknown.

Last year, when The Detroit News requested the 2024 data, Michigan State Police provided an anonymized database showing the type of petitioner, a brief summary of events prompting the request, and the status of the order. That information revealed ERPOs had been issued on several minors, including a six-year-old, and that the Detroit police department had used ERPOs on four of its officers.

However, that situation changed in June 2025. "On June 23, 2025, local courts began putting the information directly into LEIN and it was no longer kept outside of LEIN," said Michigan State Police First Lt. Mike Shaw.

State-Funded Group Struggling Without Data

The lack of centralized data is creating challenges for the Michigan Firearm Law Implementation Program (M-FLIP), a state-funded group operating under the University of Michigan's Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention. The program was funded through a $5.5 million grant contained in the fiscal year 2025 state budget to help with implementing several new gun laws, including the red flag law and the safe storage act.

April Zeoli, director for the program, has been collecting case files from each of Michigan's 83 counties in an attempt to gather comprehensive data on ERPO use. However, the process has been slow and incomplete.

"Right now, we don't know what any of those extreme risk protection orders that were granted are for," Zeoli said. "And knowing what they're for helps us figure out what problems, what challenges people are facing that law enforcement or family members or health care providers are going to ERPO as a solution to."

The program launched last month, but Zeoli and others at the university have been gathering data on ERPO use for much longer. While the state court data already released is helpful, Zeoli said more detailed case information would help the group assess various angles related to the law.

For example, information on the petitioners could show whether the law needs more education among domestic abuse prevention groups or whether protocols among health care providers who are allowed to file petitions need adjustment. More details could help researchers understand how often orders are used for suicide prevention versus preventing violence against others.

"If petitions from family members, specifically, are repeatedly denied, the state could examine whether the petition process for lay people should be adjusted," Zeoli said.

However, because Michigan's court system is not centralized, assembling case files in a central location would be "wildly expensive," Zeoli acknowledged. This reality prompted the group to manually collect case files from each courthouse, though they still don't have all the records from 2024 and are still working with counties that have cooperated.

Civil Liberties Groups Frustrated by Lack of Transparency

Public records requests to police departments are taking months to process, and a complete survey of case files in Michigan courts is not feasible, said Tom Lambert, legislative director for Michigan Open Carry and an attorney working on some cases for individuals who have had their firearms seized.

"Regardless of anyone's stance on whether this process should be in place, we should know how it works," Lambert said. "We should see: Is this working? Is it not working? Are there problems that need to be fixed?"

The lack of centralized data raises concerns about oversight and accountability for a law that allows temporary confiscation of firearms without a hearing or opportunity for the target to present evidence. The law also has unique features, including allowing orders against minors and using an expansive definition of "possession or control" of a firearm.

According to The Detroit News, the law has been invoked against children as young as six, eight, and ten years old. An order issued against a child means that firearms at the family home are liable to be confiscated regardless of actual ownership, given that "possession and control" is an open-ended definition.

A legislator confirmed that the law "allows officers to confiscate unsecured firearms from parents or guardians even though the actual order is in the child's name," and that aspect "was something we were very intentional about."

Legislator Defends Current Approach

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, the Royal Oak Democrat who sponsored the red flag law, expressed confidence that the law is working when The Detroit News asked her about the lack of detailed, centralized data.

"Reporting on this program needs to be just as strong," McMorrow said. "SCAO publishes yearly reports, and I trust every agency involved in implementation will work to do the same."

The State Court Administrative Office is required annually to give a brief overview of the frequency of requests and orders. However, even that report lacks detail on what prompted the confiscation or statistics on whether the request stemmed from law enforcement, a family member, or a medical professional.

Looking Ahead

The situation has created frustration among both supporters and opponents of the red flag law. Zeoli's group at the University of Michigan is attempting to collect more red flag data through manual efforts, but the process is slow and some circuit courts have not been cooperative with requests.

"The state police provided an anonymized database showing the type of petitioner, a brief summary of the events prompting the request and the status of the order. That information, which Michigan State Police argues is shielded in the LEIN system this year, provided data showing ERPOs had been issued on several minors, including a six-year-old, and that the Detroit police department had used ERPOs on four of its officers," the Detroit News reported last year.

With more than 500 ERPOs requested in 2025, there is currently no easy way for the public to get a comprehensive view of why those orders were requested, what circumstances led to them, or whether the law is being implemented as intended.

The change in reporting practices means the public no longer has access to specifics on the reasons and justifications behind these gun seizures, raising questions about whether this is an appropriate shift in transparency for a law that fundamentally alters constitutional rights.

Sources:

• https://www.nfib.com/news/news/michigan-legislative-update-spring-2026-edition/
• https://eu.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/politics/2026/04/02/detailed-data-on-michigans-red-flag-law-gun-seizure-cases-gets-sparse/89435605007
• https://nationaltoday.com/us/mi/lansing/news/2026/04/02/michigans-red-flag-law-data-becomes-opaque/
• https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260316/michigan-red-flag-report-sheds-light-on-confiscation-orders-in-practice
• https://michiganadvance.com/2026/03/12/over-400-red-flag-law-orders-issued-in-2025-increase-of-about-100-from-prior-year/