People v. Rapp, 821 N.W.2d 452

Defendant received a parking citation at an MSU parking structure; Rego, an MSU parking enforcement officer, interacted with him and summoned university police.
Defendant shouted and approached Rego aggressively, took pictures, and police arrived after 10–15 minutes.
Defendant was charged with misdemeanor MSU Ordinance § 15.05 for disrupting the normal activity of a protected person; the circuit court found the ordinance facially unconstitutional as overbroad.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding the ordinance not facially overbroad and denying costs to the defendant; this Court granted review on facial overbreadth and costs.
The majority holds MSU Ordinance § 15.05 is facially overbroad under Hill v. Houston, while also affirming the Court of Appeals on the costs issue.
Dissent would uphold the ordinance as constitutional on its face and remand for as-applied challenges, and agrees with costs rejection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is MSU Ordinance § 15.05 facially unconstitutional under Hill?	Rapp argues overbreadth reaches substantial protected speech.	Rapp contends disruption language sweeps too broadly regardless of application.	Yes; § 15.05 facially overbroad.
Does MCR 7.101(0) permit taxation of costs in criminal appeals in circuit court?	Rapp argues costs should be awarded because statute invalidates the prosecution’s basis.	MSU argues costs are not authorized in criminal appeals under MCR 7.101(0).	No; costs may not be taxed in this criminal matter under MCR 7.101(0).

City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (facial overbreadth of an ordinance targeting speech)
Rochester Hills v Schultz, 459 Mich 486 (1999) (First Amendment breadth and overbreadth considerations in Michigan)
Los Angeles City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (overbreadth and chilling effects in regulation of speech)