People v. Rapp
293 Mich. App. 159
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant received a MSU parking ticket in a university garage on Sept 16, 2008.
- Defendant confronted Rego, took photos, and spoke aggressively for 10–15 minutes while police were en route.
- Defendant was charged with MSU Ordinance 15.05 for disrupting MSU employees and related to campus services.
- A jury convicted the defendant; the circuit court reversed and dismissed the charges as facially overbroad.
- The circuit court also ordered costs against the prosecution; the circuit court and this Court addressed both matters in consolidated appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is MSU Ordinance 15.05 facially overbroad? | Prosecution argues the ordinance is overbroad on its face. | Defendant argues Hill makes the ordinance overbroad as applied to expressive conduct. | Not facially overbroad; remand to address as-applied concerns. |
| Does Hill control the overbreadth analysis here? | Hill supports treating the ordinance as overbroad. | Hill is distinguishable; disrupt vs interrupt matters and university context limit discretion. | Distinguishable; Hill does not doom this ordinance on facial overbreadth. |
| Was the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to this case? | Prosecution contends no; court should reassess as applied. | Defendant seeks invalidation as applied. | Remand to circuit court to consider as-applied challenges and other issues. |
| May costs be taxed against the prosecution in a criminal appeal? | Prosecution may be liable for costs under governing rules. | No statutory authority to tax costs against prosecution in criminal appeals. | Costs against the prosecution were not appropriate; reverse on costs issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (overbreadth analysis in expressive conduct cases)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2003) (overbreadth must be real and substantial relative to statute's sweep)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1973) (narrow construction can save otherwise overbroad statutes)
- Los Angeles City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (U.S. 1984) (overbreadth challenge requires real danger to protected speech)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (ordinance overbreadth where it grants broad police discretion)
- Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1990) (scope of expressive conduct regulation; need not be invalidated for every impermissible application)
- In re Chmura, 461 Mich 517 (Mich. 2000) (interpretive framework for overbreadth and vagueness in Michigan)
- People v. Barton, 253 Mich App 601 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (presumes constitutionality; construe to avoid overbreadth)
- Owosso v. Pouillon, 254 Mich App 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (vagueness/overbreadth considerations in Michigan)
- Van Buren Charter Twp v. Garter Belt, Inc., 258 Mich App 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (de novo review of constitutional challenges to ordinances)