In these three consolidated cases, we address the difficult question of whether defendants’ false statements made while serving as law enforcement officers during an internal affairs investigation can be used against them in criminal proceedings. We conclude that under the disclosures by law enforcement officers act (DLEOA), MCL 15.391 et seq., false or inaccurate information cannot be used against a law enforcement officer in subsequent criminal proceedings. To hold otherwise would defeat the Legislature’s stated intent to preclude the use of “any information,” MCL 15.393, a law enforcement officer is compelled to provide “under threat of. . . any . . . employment sanction,”1 MCL 15.391(a). And while we agree with the Court of Appeals that the Fifth Amendment of the *338United States Constitution as interpreted in Garrity v New Jersey2 does not compel this result, states may provide protections greater than those secured under the United States Constitution, and that is exactly what the Michigan Legislature did when it enacted the DLEOA in 2006. Simply stated, the DLEOA bars the use in a subsequent criminal proceeding of all information provided by a law enforcement officer under threat of any employment sanction. The act does not distinguish between true and false statements. Although the Legislature is free to amend the DLEOA to change the policy enacted, we are not. No matter how we view the policy, we must follow the language chosen by the Legislature. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the orders of dismissal entered in the district court.

I. BASIC PACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This case arises out of a disturbing encounter between Dajuan Hodges-Lamar and defendants, who at the time were police officers for the city of Detroit. While on duty in November 2009, defendant Hughes approached Hodges-Lamar while he was seated in a car at a gas station. Hughes initially appeared to question Hodges-Lamar, but quickly proceeded to assault him while defendants Harris and Little, who were also on duty, stood by and did nothing to stop the *339assault. Hodges-Lamar filed a complaint with the Detroit Police Department, which spurred an internal investigation by the Detroit Police Department’s Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI). All three defendants were called to testify at a Garrity hearing.

The OCI presented defendants with an advice-of-rights form drafted by the Detroit Police Department. In relevant part, the form broadly stated:

4. If I refuse ... to answer questions ... I will be subject to departmental charges which could result in my dismissal from the police department.

5. If I do answer. . . neither my statements or any information or evidence which is gained by reason of such statements can be used against my [sic] in any subsequent criminal proceeding.

The language of this form, like the language of DLEOA, did not expressly require truthful answers or truthful statements.3 Defendants also received a reservation-of-rights form drafted by the Detroit Police Department, which provided, in relevant part, as follows:

It is my belief... that this Statement and the Preliminary Complaint Report will not and cannot be used against me in any subsequent proceedings other than disciplinary proceedings within the confines of the Department itself. For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my Constitutional rights to remain silent under the FIFTH and FOURTEENTH AMMENDMENTS [sic] to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, and Article I, Section 17 of the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION.

*340All three defendants made false statements at the Garrity hearing. Defendants Harris and Little denied that Hughes had any physical contact with Hodges-Lamar. Hughes admitted that he removed Hodges-Lamar from Hodges-Lamar’s car during questioning, but Hughes maintained that he did not use any unnecessary force against Hodges-Lamar. A video recording of the incident surfaced after defendants had made their statements. The video recording was provided to the OCI.4

The video recording is wholly at odds with the statements provided by defendants. The prosecutor charged Hughes with common-law felony misconduct in office, MCL 750.505, misdemeanor assault and battery, MCL 750.81, and obstruction of justice, also under MCL 750.505. Defendants Harris and Little were each charged with one count of common-law obstruction of justice, MCL 750.505. The obstruction-of-justice charges were based on allegations that the officers lied during the initial investigation.

Defendants brought motions in district court to dismiss the obstruction-of-justice charges.5 The district *341court concluded that defendants’ statements were protected by the DLEOA, even if the information provided was false or misleading. The court determined that without defendants’ statements the obstruction-of-justice charges could not be sustained and dismissed those charges. The prosecution appealed in the circuit court, which concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion by dismissing the obstruction-of-justice charges.

The prosecution filed applications for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals with regard to all three defendants. In a published opinion, a divided panel reversed the lower courts and reinstated the obstruction-of-justice charges.6 The majority recognized that its holding conflicted with People v Allen,7 which held that “the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ benefits of freedom from [a] coerced waiver of the right to remain silent. . . must be respected,” even in a subsequent perjury prosecution. After noting that Allen was not binding precedent under MCR 7.215(J)(1), the majority concluded that “in light of the post-Gamfy caselaw permitting a witness’s statements to be used against him or her in a subsequent criminal prosecution for a collateral offense such as peijury or obstruction of justice, we expressly disavow Allen’s reasoning.”8 The majority further concluded that “[t]he district court. . . abused its discretion by excluding defendants’ false statements under MCL 15.393 . . . .”9 The majority reasoned that “the statute internally limits the phrase ‘involuntary statement’ to *342include true statements only, and that false statements and lies therefore fall outside the scope of the statute’s protection.”10

Judge WILDER dissented from the majority’s determination that false statements fall outside the DLEOA’s scope of protection. Relying on the plain meaning of the words of the act, Judge WILDER reasoned that the protection granted law enforcement officers under the DLEOA applies to all information garnered from an officer during a compulsory internal police investigation.

Defendants filed separate applications for leave to appeal in this Court, each arguing that the Court of Appeals majority erred by concluding that the DLEOA’s scope of protection did not encompass defendants’ false statements. On February 4, 2015, we granted the applications, directing the parties to brief “whether the Disclosures by Law Enforcement Officers Act, MCL 15.391, et seq., precludes the use of false statements by a law enforcement officer in a prosecution for obstruction of justice f.]”11

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo constitutional issues and matters of statutory interpretation.12

III. ANALYSIS

We must determine whether Michigan law provides these defendants with more protections than those provided under the Fifth Amendment of the United *343States Constitution.13 While we touch on the constitutional right against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment and the corresponding provision of the Michigan Constitution, this case does not turn on those constitutional provisions. Defendants do not maintain the protection they seek comes from Garrity or its progeny under federal or Michigan caselaw.14 Rather, defendants argue that the Legislature, in enacting the DLEOA, chose to afford law enforcement officers greater protection than that available under the Fifth Amendment and that this statutory protection requires dismissal of the obstruction-of-justice charges brought against them. This protection, defendants argue, is found in the plain language of the DLEOA, specifically MCL 16.393, which provides:

An involuntary statement made by a law enforcement officer, and any information derived from that involuntary statement, shall not be used against the law enforcement officer in a criminal proceeding.

*344The DLEOA defines the term “involuntary statement” as follows:

“Involuntary statement” means information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled under threat of dismissal from employment or any other employment sanction, by the law enforcement agency that employs the law enforcement officer.[15]

The prosecution argues this language does not preclude the use in later criminal proceedings of false or misleading information obtained through a Garrity hearing. The prosecution characterizes the language as nothing more than a codification of the Garrity rule as it has been developed through federal caselaw. Thus, the prosecution argues that the DLEOA only provides the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment. Because the Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that the Fifth Amendment grants a privilege to remain silent without consequence, but “does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury,”16 the prosecution maintains that the DLEOA does not protect from subsequent criminal prosecution a law enforcement officer who provides false or misleading statements in a Garrity hearing.

The plain language of the DLEOA controls our resolution of this dispute and compels us to agree with defendants. Applying traditional principles of statutory construction to the language of the DLEOA, we must conclude that the act sweeps within its scope the false statements offered by defendants. While we may question the Legislature’s decision to offer such unqualified protections, we are obligated to respect that *345decision and interpret the statute in accordance with its plain language.

A. THE DLEOA’S PROTECTIONS REACH BOTH TRUE AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Our primary focus in this case—and all cases in which we are called upon to interpret a statute—is the language of the statute under review. The words of the statute provide the best evidence of legislative intent and the policy choices made by the Legislature.17 Our role as members of the judiciary is not to second-guess those policy decisions or to change the words of a statute in order to reach a different result. In fact, a “clear and unambiguous statute leaves no room for judicial construction or interpretation.”18 Therefore, we start by examining the words of the statute, which “should be interpreted on the basis of their ordinary meaning and the context within which they are used in the statute.”19

The Legislature chose to use broad language in the DLEOA. The act prohibits any information derived from an involuntary statement from being used against the officer in a criminal proceeding20 and also prohibits public access to and disclosure of an involuntary statement, except under certain statutorily enumerated circumstances.21 The act does not expressly limit the statute’s protections to true statements, nor does it contain any express exception for perjury, lying, providing misinformation, or similar dishonesty. In contrast, numerous statutes concerning the use of *346compelled testimony contain express exceptions to allow the use of such dishonest testimony for impeachment purposes and in prosecutions for perjury.22 The Court of Appeals inferred the existence of such a limitation in the DLEOA from the Legislature’s use of the term “information.” While we agree that “information” comprises statements that are true, the word does not exclude statements that are false.

The word “information” is not defined in the statute, but dictionaries define the word broadly as “knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance”;23 “[k]nowledge or facts communicated about a particular subject, event, etc.; intelligence, news”;24 and “the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence [.] ”25 The dissent focuses its attention on “knowledge,” but “intelligence” and “news,” both of which are used in dictionaries to describe “information,” can be false.26 Even “knowledge” can be defined to include “the sum of what is known,”27 which does not foreclose the possibility of including something that is false.

We may even conclude that “knowledge” in its primary sense encompasses something that is true. But the statute nowhere uses the term “knowledge.” Instead, it protects “statements,” which no one disputes may be false and are statutorily defined as “information.” The critical inquiry is not whether “knowledge” *347equals “truth,” but whether “information” connotes only truth. Dictionaries, which define “information” as “knowledge,” “intelligence,” or “news,” do not yield a dispositive answer.

Keeping in mind that we must interpret the word “information” as used in the DLEOA “according to the common and approved usage of the language,”28 we apply a tool that can aid in the discovery of “how particular words or phrases are actually used in written or spoken English.”29 The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)30 allows users to “analyze!] ordinary meaning through a method that is quantifiable and verifiable.”31

The dissent claims that, in ordinary usage, “we should not think of someone who provided inaccurate statements as having imparted ‘knowledge’ or ‘infor*348mation’. . . ,”32 Empirical data from the COCA, however, demonstrates the opposite. In common usage, “information” is regularly used in conjunction with adjectives suggesting it may be both true and false.33 This strongly suggests that the unmodified word “information” can describe either true or false statements. Moreover, by reading each identified use of the word “information” in its surrounding context,34 it is clear that “information” is often used to describe false statements.35 Quite simply, “information” in common parlance describes perceptions conveyed about the world around us, which may be true or false.36

*349The Court of Appeals failed to account for the breadth and scope of the word “information.” We therefore cannot agree that the lay definitions of “information” exclude the falsehoods offered by defendants, or that the Legislature, by merely using that word, intended to impose an inherent requirement of veracity for involuntary statements to be covered under the DLEOA.37

To the contrary, examination of the Legislature’s use of “information” in other statutes that existed at the time the DLEOA was enacted leaves no doubt that the unmodified term is properly construed to apply to all “information,” whether true or false. In the years leading up to enactment of the DLEOA, the Legislature frequently modified the word “information” with the word “truthful” when it intended to reach only truthful information. Such an express limitation, found in a number of other statutes, including in statutes involving immunity or compelled statements,38 *350is not present here.39 Of particular relevance is MCL 780.702(3), which governs orders granting *351immunity to witnesses. The statute expressly limits immunity to “[t] ruthful testimony or other truthful information compelled under the order granting immunity . . . .”40 Although the statute was first enacted into law in 1968, its limitation of immunity to only truthful information was not present in the statute until 1999—seven years before the Legislature enacted the DLEOA.41 Similarly, MCL 750.157 prevents certain compelled “[t] ruthful testimony, evidence, or other truthful information” from being used against the person “in a criminal case, except for impeachment purposes or in a prosecution for perjury . . . .”42

The presence of the word “truthful” in these statutes is linked to this Court’s ruling in People v Mclntire43—a 1999 opinion we find instructive and supportive of our analysis here. At issue in Mclntire was the proper interpretation of transactional immunity for witnesses compelled to answer potentially incriminating questions under MCL 767.6. The statute at the time provided, in relevant part, that “[n]o person required to answer such questions shall thereafter be prosecuted for any offense concerning which such answers may have tended to incriminate him.”44 In light of this plain language, the Mclntire Court rejected the notion that a grant of immunity under MCL 767.6 extended only to truthful answers, reasoning that the text of the statute was “clear and unambiguous” and “simply [did] not *352condition . . . immunity on truthful testimony.”45 In so holding, this Court stressed that it was bound—as we are here—by “traditional principles of statutory construction,” which require courts to “respect the constitutional role of the Legislature as the policy-making branch of government and constrain the judiciary from encroaching on this dedicated sphere of constitutional responsibility.”46 The Legislature received this message and subsequently amended MCL 767.6 and other statutes accordingly, adding “truthful” to terms such as “testimony” and “information” when the Legislature sought to add that limitation.

The Legislature clearly knows how to limit information based on its veracity when such a limitation is important to conveying its intent. It did so in a number of other statutes it enacted or amended after McIntire, but it chose not to do so in the DLEOA, even though the Legislature had the benefit of Mclntire when it enacted the DLEOA in 2006. We cannot overlook this choice or refuse to give it effect.47 Accordingly, we conclude that *353the Legislature intended the word “information,” as used in MCL 15.391, to include no inherent requirement of veracity, but instead to include statements that may be true or false.48

*355B. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OP THE DLEOA REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF THE OBSRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE CHARGES

Applying this interpretation of the DLEOA’s plain language, the obstruction-of-justice charges brought against defendants must be dismissed. Defendants provided statements regarding their encounter with Mr. Hodges-Lamar under threat of termination; these statements, though false, are protected by the DLEOA and, therefore, cannot be used against defendants in a criminal proceeding. There is no dispute that defendants’ statements provided the only basis for charging them with obstruction of justice and that if this evidence is inadmissible, the charges must be dismissed. According to the Court of Appeals majority, however, this outcome must be rejected because it is “wholly contrary to the Legislature’s purpose in enacting the [DLEOA],” which “was to create a mechanism for facilitating internal police investigations and to provide an incentive for officers who cooperate by providing needed facts.”49 Justice MARKMAN now echoes this sentiment in dissent, concluding that “[n]o Legislature, and no legislator, could conceivably have intended such a result.”50

*356We understand how this result may be viewed as unpalatable. But as this Court has long made clear, our statutory analysis is controlled by principles of interpretation, not palatability of outcomes. It is not our role to rewrite the law or substitute our own policy judgment in the face of the text of the statute, or “to create an ambiguity where none exists in order to reach a desired result, albeit one with which [we] might wholeheartedly agree [if we were legislators] authorized to enact policy.”51

For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we discern from the plain language of the DLEOA a legislative intent to protect all Garrity statements, regardless of their veracity. And while there may be ample room to question the wisdom of such unqualified statutory protections, we see no principled basis for this Court to ignore or reject the Legislature’s enactment of them.

We do not view recognition of these unqualified protections as absurd or flatly at odds with the purpose of the DLEOA. There is seemingly no dispute that the protections offered by the DLEOA are intended to encourage and facilitate officers’ participation in internal investigations, with the goal of rendering those investigations more fruitful and effective. As the plain language of the DLEOA makes clear, the Legislature deemed this purpose best served by not limiting the statute’s protections only to statements that are true. Regardless of whether we agree with this policy determination, we can conceive of reasons for it. The Legislature may very well have viewed the benefit of such a limitation—namely, the ability to criminally prosecute officers for lies told during an internal investigation—as outweighed by *357its costs. Not all statements, after all, are clearly true or entirely false, and the Legislature may have concluded that qualifying the DLEOA’s statutory protections based on veracity would unduly complicate the implementation of those protections52 or undermine the certainty and effectiveness of the protections offered. Indeed, the Allen Court observed that the exception to protection for perjured statements is “more precisely stated” as an exception to protection “where the prosecuting authority charges perjury,”53 a broader scope encompassing prosecutorial discretion and requiring the jury to ultimately decide the falsity of a statement. The Legislature may have reasoned—for better or worse—that it was more beneficial to punish the lies uncovered during the course of internal investigations with internal discipline.64 We fail to see the absurdity in such reasoning, particularly given that the Legislature knows how to, and does, modify the term “information” with “truthful” when it intends to bring only truthful information within the scope of its legislation. And, as this Court stressed in Mclntire,55 we need not be sure of the precise reasons for a statutory judgment or be convinced of the wisdom of the legislation.

*358[I]n our democracy, a legislature is free to make ineffica-cious or even unwise policy choices. The correction of these policy choices is not a judicial function as long as the legislative choices do not offend the constitution. Instead, the correction must be left to the people and the tools of democracy: the ballot box, initiative, referendum, or constitutional amendment.[56]

This statement applies with equal force in the present case. The plain language of the DLEOA protects all statements given by officers under compulsion. This choice may seem odd, or reflective of questionable or even bad public policy, but it was the Legislature’s choice to make. We are not empowered to displace what the law actually provides with a judicial preference for what we believe it should provide.

IV. CONCLUSION

In sum, the Legislature chose not to protect only truthful information when it enacted the DLEOA. This is demonstrated by the plain language of the statute when contrasted with the Legislature’s known capacity to expressly limit the word “information” based on veracity in other statutes when such a limitation is critical to the Legislature’s intent. Accordingly, we must conclude that the DLEOA prohibits the use of an officer’s Garrity statement, even if false, in a criminal proceeding, including one for perjury or obstruction of justice. The Court of Appeals erred by concluding otherwise. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it held that, under the DLEOA, a law enforcement officer’s involuntary statement could be used against him or her in a criminal proceeding if the statement was false. We reinstate the orders en*359tered in the district court that dismissed the obstruction-of-justice charges brought against defendants.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion to the extent that it holds that the Fifth Amendment does not preclude the use of false statements by a law enforcement officer in a prosecution for obstruction of justice. However, I respectfully disagree with it to the extent that it holds that the disclosures by law enforcement officers act (DLEOA), MCL 15.391 et seq., precludes the use of false statements by a law enforcement officer in a prosecution for obstruction of justice. That is, contrary to the majority, I agree with the Court of Appeals that false statements do not constitute “information” and therefore are not protected by the DLEOA, which only protects “information.” Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I. PACTS AND HISTORY

The defendant police officers, Sean Harris, William Little, and Nevin Hughes, were charged with obstruction of justice for lying during an internal investigation of Hughes, who had assaulted Dajuan Hodges-Lamar. The assault was video recorded by a security camera at a gas station.1 Defendants argued that the Fifth Amendment and the DLEOA prohibit the prosecutor *360from using the statements they made during the investigation. Before defendants provided their statements, the investigating officer provided each with a standard departmental notification-of-constitutional-rights form. This form stated, in relevant part, “If I refuse ... to answer questions . . . , I will be subject to departmental charges which could result in my dismissal from the police department,” and “[i]f I do answer . . ., neither my statements or any information or evidence which is gained by reason of such statements can be used against my [sic] in any subsequent criminal proceeding.”2 Each defendant signed the form and then proceeded to lie, stating that defendant Hughes did not have any physical contact with Hodges-Lamar apart from a pat-down search. The video recording showed otherwise.

The district court dismissed the obstruction-of-justice charges on the basis that defendants’ statements to the investigating officer could not be used against them under the DLEOA and the Fifth Amendment,3 and the circuit court affirmed. In a published and split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the obstruction-of-justice charges against *361all three defendants, holding that neither the Fifth Amendment nor the DLEOA prohibits the prosecutor from using the statements made by defendants during the investigation. People v Hughes, 306 Mich App 116; 865 NW2d 209 (2014). Judge WILDER concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit the prosecutor from using defendants’ statements, but concluded that the DLEOA does prohibit the prosecutor from using defendants’ statements. This Court then granted defendants’ applications for leave to appeal. People v Harris, 497 Mich 958 (2015).

II. ANALYSIS

A. THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” US Const, Am V (emphasis added); see also Const 1963, art 1, § 17.4 In Garrity v New Jersey, 385 US 493; 87 S Ct 616; 17 L Ed 2d 562 (1967), several police officers were investigated by the New Jersey Attorney General for fixing traffic tickets. *362After having been warned that if they refused to answer questions they would be subject to removal from office, the officers answered the questions asked of them during the investigation. Id. at 494-495. The Court held that their answers were “compelled” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and therefore that the statements could not be used against them in subsequent prosecutions for conspiracy to obstruct the administration of the traffic laws. Id. at 497-500. The Court explained that “protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.” Id. at 500.5

However, in United States v Wong, 431 US 174, 179; 97 S Ct 1823; 52 L Ed 2d 231 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that “the Fifth Amendment privilege does not protect perjury . . . .” Instead, “ [i] t grants a privilege to remain silent without risking contempt, but it ‘does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury.’ ” Id. at 178 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court held that the defendant’s false testimony was admissible in a subsequent perjury trial even though the defendant had provided the false testimony without being informed of her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.6 “[E]ven the pre*363dicament of being forced to choose between incriminatory truth and falsehood, as opposed to refusing to answer, does not justify perjury.” Id. at 178. “[B]y answering falsely the [defendant] took ‘a course that the Fifth Amendment gave [defendant] no privilege to take.’ ” Id. at 178-179 (citation omitted). “Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to answer falsely.” Id. at 180. “If the citizen answers the question, the answer must be truthful.” Id.

Similarly, in United States v Apfelbaum, 445 US 115, 117, 131; 100 S Ct 948; 63 L Ed 2d 250 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the “proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination allows a witness to remain silent, but not to swear falsely,” and thus “neither the [federal use-immunity] statute[7] nor the Fifth Amendment precludes the use of respondent’s immunized testimony at a subsequent prosecution for making false statements . . . .” That is, “perjury prosecutions are permissible for false answers to questions following the grant of immunity” because “the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination provides no protection for the commission of perjury . . . .” Id. at 126-127. See also McKinley v City of Mansfield, 404 F3d 418, 427 (CA6, 2005) (“As a matter of Fifth Amendment right, Garrity precludes *364use of public employees’ compelled incriminating statements in a later prosecution for the conduct under investigation. However, Garrity does not preclude use of such statements in prosecutions for the independent crimes of obstructing the public employer’s investigation or making false statements during it.”) (citation omitted); id. (“[T]he Fifth Amendment permits the government to use compelled statements obtained during an investigation if the use is limited to a prosecution for collateral crimes such as perjury or obstruction of justice.”).

In light of this caselaw, it is clear that the Fifth Amendment does not protect a defendant from a subsequent prosecution for perjury or obstruction of justice predicated on false statements that the defendant made after having been granted immunity from prosecution.8 Therefore, defendants’ false statements are not inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. As a result, I agree with the Court of Appeals that

[t]he Fifth Amendment did not bar the admission of defendants’ false statements in the instant prosecutions for obstruction of justice. The district court abused its discretion by relying on the Fifth Amendment to exclude defendants’ false statements from evidence. [Hughes, 306 Mich App at 128.]

B. DLEOA

The Court of Appeals also held that the DLEOA does not bar admission of defendant’s false statements, and again I agree. MCL 15.393 of the DLEOA provides:

*365An involuntary statement made by a law enforcement officer, and any information derived from that involuntary statement, shall not be used against the law enforcement officer in a criminal proceeding.[9]

1. “INFORMATION”

MCL 15.391 defines the term “involuntary statement” as “information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled under threat of dismissal from employment or any other employment sanction. . . .” (Emphasis added.) “Information” is defined as “1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news. 2. Knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; data; facts.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1992).10 In turn, “knowledge” is *366defined as “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles[.]” Id. (emphasis added).11 As the Court of Appeals explained:

The phrase “involuntary statement” is defined as “information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled under threat of dismissal from employment or any other employment sanction, by the law enforcement agency that employs the law enforcement officer.” MCL 15.391(a) (emphasis added). But when an officer is compelled to make a statement during an internal investigation, and provides only misinformation and lies, he or she has not provided any “information” at all within the commonly understood meaning of that word. Among other things, “information” is defined as “knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance.” Random. House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997). The word “knowledge,” in turn, is defined as “the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.” Id. Because an officer’s lies do not impart any truths or facts, they necessarily do not constitute “information.” See MCL 15.391(a).[12] In other words, an officer’s lies and *367false statements do not qualify as “involuntary state-mentfe]” under MCL 15.393, and consequently may be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. [Hughes, 306 Mich App at 129-130.]

Judge WILDER concurred with the Court of Appeals majority regarding the Fifth Amendment issue, but dissented on the statutory issue on the basis that lies constitute “information.” As already explained, I agree with the Court of Appeals majority that lies do not constitute “information” as that term is commonly understood.13 In other words, I do not believe most people would reasonably conclude that a person has provided them with “information” if all that the other person has done is tell them lies.14

*369Judge WILDER concluded that because “misinform” is defined as “giv[ing] false or misleading information,” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997), “the term ‘information’ as used in MCL 15.393 must be interpreted to include the giving of ‘misinformation.’ ” Hughes, 306 Mich App at 134 (WILDER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully disagree. “Mis” is a prefix meaning the “opposite,” “lack of,” or negative of something. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed).15 Therefore, “misinformation” constitutes the “opposite” of “information,” and because “misinformation” means “false or misleading information,” it follows that “information” means true or accurate information.16 Contrary to the contentions of Judge WILDER and now the majority in this Court, “misinformation” by its prefix signifies that it is com*370paring itself to “information;” it is not referring to a subset, a type, or a class, of “information.”

Judge WILDER and the majority in this Court also rely on the fact that a number of Michigan statutes refer to “inaccurate” or “misleading” information. See, e.g, MCL 769.34(10); MCL 750.492a(l); MCL 168.467b(6); MCL 487.2140(2); MCL 791.235(l)(b). However, I believe that this actually supports the Court of Appeals majority’s conclusion that “information” signifies truthful information because in those unusual circumstances in which the Legislature is intending to refer to untruthful information, it expressly refers to “inaccurate” or “misleading” information. That is, the Legislature recognizes that when it intends to refer to untruthful information, it needs to supply a modifier to precede “information” because, when unmodified, “information” signifies truthful information.17 The Legislature’s affirmative and specific references to “inaccurate” or “misleading” information in the previously cited provisions in contrast to the absence of such modifying terms in MCL 15.391 evidences its intention to limit the DLEOA’s protection to “information,” and what is ordinarily connoted by this *371term, and not to extend it to inaccurate or misleading information. See Farrington v Total Petroleum, Inc, 442 Mich 201, 210; 501 NW2d 76 (1993) (“Courts cannot assume that the Legislature inadvertently omitted from one statute the language that it placed in another statute, and then, on the basis of that assumption, apply what is not there.”); Paselli v Utley, 286 Mich 638, 643; 282 NW2d 849 (1938) (“This court cannot write into the statutes [protections] that the legislature has not seen fit to enact.”).

The majority in this Court concludes that because the Legislature has modified the term “information” with the adjective “truthful” in other statutes, but not the instant one, it must have intended the term “information” in the instant statute to include both truthful and false information. That is, the Legislature obviously knew how to limit “information” to only “truthful information,” and it chose not to limit “information” in that manner in the instant statute. Again, I respectfully disagree. The majority cites nine statutes that contain the phrase “truthful information.”18 However, *372six of those statutes were amended in the immediate aftermath of this Court’s decision in People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147; 599 NW2d 102 (1999), which held that a witness did not have to answer questions truthfully in order to receive immunity under MCL 767.6. See MCL 29.7(4); MCL 750.157; MCL 750.453; MCL 750.125(5); MCL 780.702(3); MCL 780.702a(6). That is, in the immediate aftermath of Mclntire, the Legislature inserted “truthful” into MCL 767.6 and other related statutes.19 As this Court has recognized, this kind of legislative history constitutes the “highest quality” of legislative history. In re Certified Question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 468 Mich 109, 115 n 5; 659 NW2d 597 (2003). One of the other statutes that the majority relies on, MCL 750.122, was also enacted in the wake of Mclntire.20 Thus, seven out of the nine statutes the majority relies on were amended or enacted immediately after Mcln-tire was decided. This is significant because it strongly suggests that before Mclntire was decided, the Legislature understood that the term “information” by itself means “truthful information,” and it was not until after Mclntire was decided that the Legislature felt it was necessary to modify “information” with “truthful” in order to limit the protections of these statutes to only “truthful information.”21

*373The other two statutes that the majority relies on were enacted before Mclntire was decided, but are quite distinguishable. To begin with, MCL 400.111b, a statute within the Social Welfare Act, refers to both “untrue, misleading, or deceptive information” and “truthful information.” Given that the statute initially uses the phrase “untrue information,” it makes sense that when the statute subsequently uses the term “information,” the Legislature would choose to clarify that it was referring to “truthful information” on this occasion, rather than the previously mentioned “untrue information.”

The final statute the majority relies on, MCL 333.17014, a statute within the Public Health Code, sets forth the legislative findings that supported the Legislature’s enactment of MCL 333.17015 and MCL 333.17515. Legislative findings do not constitute substantive law. See Nat’l Pride at Work, Inc v Governor, 481 Mich 56, 79 n 20; 748 NW2d 524 (2008). Although the legislative-findings statute, MCL 333.17014, on one occasion refers to “truthful information,” neither of the substantive statutes, MCL 333.17015; MCL 333.17515, refers to “truthful information,” even though one of the substantive statutes, MCL 333.17015, repeatedly refers to “information,” and, given the context, it is clear that the statute is referring to “truthful information.” Furthermore, although the legislative-findings statute itself repeatedly uses *374the word “information” in a manner that makes it clear the Legislature is referring to “truthful information,” the Legislature only modified the term “information” with “truthful” on a single occasion in that statute.

The majority thus has identified nine statutes that use the phrase “truthful information,” and from this the majority concludes that “information” unmodified by “truthful” must include both truthful and false information. However, the majority does not take into account that the Legislature has used the word “information” in 4,849 statutes, and only nine of these statutes modify “information” with “truthful.” Does the majority truly believe that in the other 4,840 statutes in which the Legislature used “information” it was referring to both true and false information?22 I simply cannot believe it possible that in the nearly 5,000 laws enacted by our Legislature in which “information” was required to be provided, considered, acted on, shared, or evaluated, those laws were unconcerned with, or disinterested in, whether such information was true or false.

Although the Legislature added “truthful” before “information” in a handful of statutes following McIntire, the Legislature likely did not believe it needed to add “truthful” before “information” when it enacted the DLEOA in 2006 (seven years after McIntire was decided) because: (a) the DLEOA was viewed as a codification of Garrity and its progeny, and it is clear that false statements are not protected under those decisions; and (b) the Legislature almost certainly perceived the word “information” as only connoting truth*375ful information and simply did not feel obligated in perpetuity to add “truthful” every time it used the word “information” just as it might not feel obligated in perpetuity to say “dogs but not cats” in place of “dogs” if, for example, this Court had issued an opinion stating that “dogs” means both “dogs and cats.”23

The majority’s reliance on McIntire for anything other than explaining why the Legislature amended MCL 767.6 and similar statutes to add the word “truthful” is misplaced. As the majority explains, McIntire involved the interpretation of MCL 767.6, which at the time provided that “[n]o person required to answer such questions shall thereafter be prosecuted for any offense concerning which such answers may have tended to incriminate him.” MCL 767.7, as amended by *3761951 PA 276. Although the majority claims that the statute at issue in Mclntire and the statute at issue here are “similar,” and perhaps in some ways they are, there is a critical and relevant difference—only the latter pertains to “information.” It is one thing to say that a person can answer questions falsely; it is another thing to say that a person provides “information” when he or she provides false statements. McIntire reached the former holding, but not the latter. That is, nothing within Mclntire can be read to suggest that false statements constitute “information.” The only thing that Mclntire held was that under MCL 767.6, as it was drafted at the time, a witness who answered questions under an order granting immunity was entitled to such immunity, regardless of whether the witness answered the questions truthfully or falsely.

I agree with the majority that McIntire’s actual holding has not been overruled by this Court and presumably never will be because, as already discussed, the statute at issue has since been amended in such a way that the issue addressed in McIntire will not arise again. The majority seems to believe that this means that we are forevermore encumbered with McIntire’s holding that a person’s statements do not have to be truthful in order for that person to be entitled to immunity. Apparently, the majority believes that to be the case even though McIntire has been superseded by statute and the Legislature has employed statutory language that is entirely different from the language that was at issue in McIntire. Importantly, the statute at issue in McIntire did not use the word “information,” and Mclntire thus did not address its meaning, but the majority uses McIntire to support its conclusion that “information” refers to both true and false statements. However, because the *377statute at issue here, unlike that at issue in McIntire, only protects “information,” McIntire does not require us to hold that false statements are protected by the statute at issue here. And simply because the Legislature directly reacted to McIntire by inserting the word “truthful” before the word “information” in a handful of statutes does not mean that we must forevermore hold that whenever the Legislature does not add the word “truthful” before “information,” it must be referring to both truthful and false statements. Rather, what most obviously can be drawn from the Legislature’s response to McIntire is that McIntire’s equivalent treatment of truthful and false statements was squarely repudiated, an equivalency that is exactly repeated in the majority’s interpretation in the instant case.

The majority asserts that “the existence of McIntire at the time the DLEOA was enacted provides us great insight into the intent of the Legislature” and “we see no reason to abandon McIntire now.” However, given that McIntire did not interpret the term “information” as we are called upon to do now, and given that McIntire has already been emphatically superseded by legislative enactments, see note 19 of this opinion, I am baffled as to what “great insight into the intent of the Legislature” the majority has derived from McIntire that I am supposedly urging it to “abandon.” If this “great insight” is this Court’s obligation to adhere to the plain language of a statute, I am hardly urging the majority to abandon this. Indeed, it is precisely the plain language of the DLEOA that causes me to conclude that the act does not protect false statements. That is, because the DLEOA only protects “information,” and because the plain meaning of the term “information” does not encompass *378false statements, the DLEOA does not protect false statements.

2. “COMPELLED”

Additionally, MCL 15.391 defines the term “involuntary statement” as “information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Not only are lies not “information,” but they are also not “compelled.”24 That is exactly why the Fifth Amendment prohibition against compelled self-incrimination does not protect perjury. See Wong, 431 US at 178 (“It grants a privilege to remain silent without risking contempt, but it does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Lefkowitz v Turley, 414 US 70, 77; 94 S Ct 316; 38 L Ed 2d 274 (1973) (“The object of the Amendment ‘was to insure that a person should not be compelled ... to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime.’ ”) (citation omitted). Neither the Fifth Amendment nor the DLEOA was ever intended to protect false statements made to cover up criminal activity.

As previously noted, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled... to be a witness against himself. ...” US Const, Am V. “The design of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege is . . . to protect [a person] against being compelled to furnish evidence to convict him of a criminal charge.” Brown v Walker, 161 US 591, 605-606; 16 S Ct 644; 40 L Ed 819 (1896). In other words, “the Fifth Amendment privilege speaks only of compulsion[.]” People v Wyngaard, 462 Mich 659, *379672; 614 NW2d 143 (2000). Therefore, the applicability of Fifth Amendment protection often turns on whether a person’s testimony or statements were compelled.25

Pertinent to the instant case, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the Fifth Amendment does not endow a person with a license to commit perjury. See Glickstein v United States, 222 US 139, 142; 32 S Ct 71; 56 L Ed 128 (1911) (“[T]he immunity afforded by the constitutional guaranty relates to the past and does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury.”). In Glick-stein, the Court construed a similar immunity statute that did not contain an exception for perjury.26 In addressing whether the statute immunized false statements, the Court stated:

[T]he statute expressly commands the giving of testimony, and its manifest purpose is to secure truthful testimony, while the limited and exclusive meaning which the contention attributes to the immunity clause would cause the section to be a mere license to commit perjury, and hence not to command the giving of testimony in the true sense of the word.

The argument that because the section does not contain an expression of the reservation of a right to prosecute for *380perjury in harmony with the reservations in Rev. Stat., § 860, and the act of 1893, therefore it is to be presumed that it was intended that no such right should exist, we think, simply begs the question for decision, since it is impossible in reason to conceive that Congress commanded the giving of testimony, and at the same time. intended that false testimony might be given with impunity in the absence of the most express and specific command to that effect.

Bearing in mind the subject dealt with we think the reservation of the right to prosecute for perjury made in the statutes to which we have referred was but the manifestation of abundant caution, and hence the absence of such reservation in the statute under consideration may not be taken as indicative of an intention on the part of Congress that perjury might be committed at pleasure. [Id. at 143-144.[27]

The Court concluded that the statute, in compelling the giving of testimony, did not confer immunity wider than that guaranteed by the Constitution. Id. at 142-144.

I believe Glickstein is instructive in assessing the majority’s argument that the DLEOA includes false statements because the Legislature did not use the term “truthful information.” Glickstein rejected the defendant’s analogous argument that, because the statute in that case did not include a perjury exemption that had been included in other statutes, such an exemption did not exist. Similarly, the Michigan Legislature’s use of “truthful” in other statutes appears at most to only reflect a “manifestation of abundant *381caution” rather than suggesting that the DLEOA does not extend to false statements. Id. at 144.

Further, although Glickstein did not clearly explain why the Fifth Amendment does not endow a person with a license to commit perjury, it recognized the critical relationship between compelled statements and the truth. The United States Supreme Court expounded on this relationship in United States v Knox, 396 US 77; 90 S Ct 363; 24 L Ed 2d 275 (1969), holding that the Fifth Amendment does not protect perjury because those false statements are not compelled. In Knox, the defendant was indicted for including false, material information in his tax filings. He sought Fifth Amendment protection, arguing that his tax filings were compelled by statute and that, had he not filed truthful and complete forms as required, he would have incriminated himself. Similarly, filing no forms at all would have also subjected him to prosecution. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument, noting that he had “taken a course other than the one that the statute was designed to compel, a course that the Fifth Amendment gave him no privilege to take.” Id. at 82. The Court stated that “when [defendant] responded to the pressure under which he found himself by communicating false information, this was simply not testimonial compulsion.” Id. Similarly, in Wong, 431 US at 178, the Court confirmed that the Fifth Amendment does not condone perjury, emphasizing that “the predicament of being forced to choose between incriminatory truth and falsehood, as opposed to refusing to answer, does not justify perjury.”28

*382Garrity statements are protected by the Fifth Amendment because, by requiring an individual to choose between self-incrimination and job forfeiture, the resulting statements are compelled. Garrity, 385 US at 497-498. These statements are “infected by the coercion inherent in [the] scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained as voluntary ...” Id. But, Garrity does not provide a license to lie or commit perjury. United States v Veal, 153 F3d 1233, 1243 (CA 11, 1998).29 The Fifth Amendment does not protect false Garrity statements because those “deliberate, false statements” result from “independent, voluntary choices.” Id. at 1244.30 The statements therefore provide an avenue for the prosecution of obstruction of justice.

The issue here is whether defendants’ statements were protected by the DLEOA, not the Fifth Amendment. But in the DLEOA, the Legislature used the term “compelled” when providing statutory protection *383to Garrity statements. As already explained in this opinion, when considering whether the privilege against self-incrimination is implicated, Fifth Amendment jurisprudence focuses extensively on whether the testimony or statements were “compelled.” In this context, “compelled” has acquired a particular meaning, requiring courts to consider whether specific circumstances giving rise to compulsion are present such that Fifth Amendment protection applies.31 Because of this, “compelled” should be construed and understood in accordance with that meaning. MCL 8.3a; People v Law, 459 Mich 419, 425 n 8; 591 NW2d 20 (1999). Giving the appropriate meaning to this term of art, the DLEOA does not bar the use of the statements because defendants’ decision to lie constituted a voluntary choice that was not “compelled under threat of dismissal from employment or any other employment sanction . . . .” MCL 15.391.

The government here did not “compel” defendants to lie. Rather, it sought only to “compel” defendants to tell the truth. That defendants chose to provide exculpatory falsehoods, rather than inculpatory truths, resulted in their loss of protection under the Fifth Amendment and MCL 15.393. See Wong, 431 US at 178 (“[E]ven the predicament of being forced to choose between incriminatory truth and falsehood, as opposed to refusing to answer, does not justify perjury.”).32 Our *384Constitution and laws protect compelled “information”—incriminating truths, not exculpatory falsehoods.33

3. CONTEXT

It must finally be noted that “[a] court does not construe the meaning of statutory terms in a vacuum.” Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 650; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Rather, we interpret the words in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Michigan ex rel Gurganus v CVS Caremark Corp, 496 Mich 45, 59; 852 NW2d 103 (2014) (“Individual words and *385phrases are not read in a vacuum; we examine the statute as a whole, reading individual words and phrases in the context of the entire legislative scheme.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The statute at issue here is based upon an obvious theory of quid pro quo: police officers provide information to the government about police misconduct, and in exchange the government agrees not to use the information against the officers. Both the government and the officers thereby receive a benefit—the government receives information that may be helpful in identifying criminal misconduct, and the officers effectively receive immunity.34 However, where the officers proceed to lie to the government, the government is deprived of that to which it was entitled in exchange for the grant of immunity—information.35 There is simply no longer any consideration given by the officers, i.e., there is no quid pro quo. In such a situation, the officers should likewise be deprived of that for which they bargained— immunity. Otherwise, they would receive what they bargained for—immunity—without having to fulfill their part of the bargain—providing information—and the manifest truth-seeking function of the statute would thus be nullified. No Legislature, and no legislator, could conceivably have intended such a result. As the Court of Appeals explained:

*386We conclude that the Legislature’s manifest intent was to create a mechanism for facilitating internal police investigations and to provide an incentive for officers who cooperate by providing needed facts. The Legislature certainly did not intend to immunize police officers by precluding the use of their lies and false statements in criminal proceedings. Indeed, such a strained construction of MCL 15.393 would be wholly contrary to the Legislature’s purpose in enacting the statute. In sum, the plain language of MCL 15.391(a) establishes that an “involuntary statement” includes only truthful and factual information. Quite simply, when an officer lies, he or she provides no “information.” Accordingly, MCL 15.393 does not preclude the use of the officer’s lies in a criminal proceeding. [Hughes, 306 Mich App at 130.]

Reference to “information provided by a law enforcement officer,” MCL 15.391(a), in exchange for immunity, cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean simply any utterance of words; instead, it must reasonably be interpreted as meaning truthful information. Given that the obvious purpose of the statute at issue is to assist in the discovery of police misconduct, an indispensable element of the induced statement is that it be truthful so that it may—in fact or potentially—assist in such discovery. If the police officers who are questioned are allowed to provide false statements without consequence, i.e., without adversely affecting their guarantee of immunity, not only is the government not assisted in its responsibilities to investigate and punish police misconduct, but it may be affirmatively hindered or obstructed in this regard by the false statements, which indeed is exactly what occurred in the case at hand.36 In *387this case, after defendants stated that defendant Hughes did not have any improper physical contact with the complainant, the investigation was terminated and it was not revived until a year later and that was only because the person who had been assaulted by defendant Hughes hired a private investigator who later discovered the video recording of the assault. Allowing an officer to provide false statements and yet receive full immunity utterly defeats the obvious purpose of the statute and serves no comprehensible alternative purpose.37 As a result, I believe that construing *388the DLEOA in light of its obvious purpose—assisting in the discovery of police misconduct—strongly supports the conclusion that “information” presupposes “truthful information.” Simply put, there is no reason to enact an immunity statute if it cannot produce “information” that is helpful in uncovering police misconduct. As the United States Supreme Court explained, “it is impossible in reason to conceive that Congress commanded the giving of testimony, and at the same time intended that false testimony might be given with impunity in the absence of the most express and specific command to that effect.” Glickstein, 222 US at 143. Similarly, I am not persuaded that the DLEOA protects false statements absent any “express and specific command to that effect,” which the DLEOA does not contain. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

Because I agree with the Court of Appeals that neither the Fifth Amendment nor the DLEOA forbid the use of a law enforcement officer’s false statements in a subsequent prosecution for obstruction of justice, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.