In a surprising move, the Michigan State Police recently implemented a new policy: when investigating state employees, including corrections officers, troopers must now refer those cases to prosecutors outside the official’s home county; to the Attorney General’s Office. Critics are calling it an overreach. Prosecutors are calling it an insult.
Whatever you call it, let’s be honest; the old system wasn’t working. And for those of us who’ve watched accountability wither away in rural counties like Barry, Van Buren, or Ionia, this change might finally be a breath of long-overdue justice.
The Problem: Local Gatekeeping, Not Law Enforcement
Take the case of Casey Wagner, a Michigan Department of Corrections officer in Ionia County. Community members and investigative reports have raised serious concerns: allegations of intimidation, unauthorized explosives, and even illegal dumping of tires and tanks, potentially creating environmental hazards in his neighborhood. Yet local officials have nothing to intervene. Why? Because Wagner works alongside the very same system meant to hold him accountable.
Judge Raymond Voet recently dismissed felony charges against four Bellamy Creek officers who were allowed to beat an incarcerated person.
In a rare occurrence, Prosecutor Kyle Butler did seek charges for Michigan DOC employee Sixto Herrera.
In Ionia County, corrections officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prosecutors are part of a small, tightly woven professional web. Investigating one of their own can be either career suicide or worse, completely ignored.
And in many other counties just like it, they can’t be trusted to go it alone; they need higher accountability and transparency.
The New Policy: A Potential Lifeline for Justice
Under the new Michigan State Police directive, investigators must bypass local prosecutors when the subject of the investigation is a public official or government employee in that county. Instead, the case is referred to a different jurisdiction to determine whether charges are appropriate.
Critics argue this takes away local control. But when local control is protecting bad actors, that’s exactly the point.
Ionia Isn’t the Only Example
It’s not just Wagner, Voet, or Butler. It’s not just Schipper. It’s not just Desch or the plethora of people this blog has received reports on.
Across Michigan, particularly in smaller, rural jurisdictions, whistleblowers and concerned citizens often hit a wall of silence.
Public integrity complaints are waved away. Judges and prosecutors protect their inner circles. Even when there’s evidence of wrongdoing, there’s little will to pursue justice.
This new policy is a structural correction to a cultural failure: it removes potential conflicts of interest by changing who decides whether justice is served.
A Step Toward Structural Integrity
Rather than undermining local control, I’d like to think that this policy is about restoring public trust. It does not guarantee justice, but it clears one of the biggest hurdles: asking prosecutors to investigate their friends and colleagues.
That burden should never have existed in the first place.
What’s at Stake
When government employees act without oversight, communities suffer. Even those with badges, guns, and authority over incarcerated people. Without external accountability, those harmed by misconduct are left with no recourse, and dangerous patterns of abuse continue unchecked.
This policy acknowledges that. And while it’s not perfect, it’s progress.
Justice Needs Distance
If local prosecutors won’t hold public officials accountable, if small rural counties won’t address bad actors’ behavior, then someone else has to.
Hopefully, this policy ensures that someone will.
Sometimes justice doesn’t come from the people closest to power. Sometimes it has to come from the outside.
And in Michigan, that may be our only shot at finally doing right by the people who’ve been ignored for too long.
