Castagnera on Risk Management in Higher Education… and more: Michigan Supremes say a person cannot be prosecuted for a verbal dispute with a traffic cop

Monday, August 6, 2012

Michigan Supremes say a person cannot be prosecuted for a verbal dispute with a traffic cop

STATE OF MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v JARED RAPP,

Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

HATHAWAY, J. At issue in this case is whether Michigan State University (MSU) Ordinance, § 15.05 is facially unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s conclusion that the ordinance is unconstitutional under City of Houston, Texas v Hill, 482 US 451; 107 S Ct 2502; 96 L Ed 2d 398 (1987).1 Because we agree with the circuit court’s analysis and conclude that the language in the ordinance making it an offense to “disrupt the normal activity” of a protected person is facially overbroad, as articulated by People v Rapp, 293 Mich App 159; 809 NW2d 665 (2011). No.143343; 143344

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

FILED JULY 27, 2012the United States Supreme Court in Hill, we reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment pertaining to the constitutionality of MSU Ordinance, § 15.05, and we reinstate the circuit court’s decision with regard to this issue to the extent that the circuit court held that the quoted language is facially unconstitutional.

Also at issue is whether MCR 7.101(O) provides for taxation of costs in criminal cases. The Court of Appeals held that costs may not be assessed under MCR 7.101(O) in criminal matters.2 We agree with the Court of Appeals and, therefore, affirm that portion of its judgment.

More: http://verdict.justia.com/2012/08/06/the-michigan-supreme-court-holds-that-the-first-amendment-protects-drivers-from-being-punished-for-their-purely-verbal-disagreements-with-parking-ticket-officers