Jared Rapp has a great career ahead of him as a lawyer.  Not only because his win before the Michigan Supreme Court in  People v. Rapp was a significant victory for free speech, not to mention an important smack down for “meter maids,” regardless of gender, who believe that no mere citizen has the right to orally challenge their official acts, but because he did something that few people do.  He took a small but important fight all the way to victory.

From The Fire :

On September 16, 2008, Rapp received a parking ticket on MSU’s campus. He approached a nearby MSU parking enforcement employee to complain about the ticket. When Rapp began shouting, the employee called campus police from inside his service vehicle, the standard procedure for responding to an upset parking ticket recipient. Rapp was charged with violating MSU Ordinance § 15.05, which reads:

No person shall disrupt the normal activity or molest the property of any person, firm, or agency while that person, firm, or agency is carrying out service, activity or agreement for or with the University.

Rapp was eventually convicted of violating this ordinance for his tirade against the parking enforcement employee.

Rapp was an MSU law student at the time, and decided to represent himself pro se.  This detail is critical, as few nonlawyer would either have the ability, or be willing to commit the wherewithal, to make such a fight.  One of the most important reasons that small laws get away with being unconstitutional is that it’s not worth the cost of fighting them.  While  Rapp was hit with an “$873 fine, a mandatory anger management course, 80 hours of community service and two years of probation,” the ordinary application of cost/benefit analysis would dictate that he let it go.

Rapp refused to let it go.

Rapp based his case on the 1987 US Supreme Court case Houston v. Hill which found unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment a municipal ordinance that made it a crime to interrupt a police officer. The justices in that case stated police should not be given the ability to arrest individuals for words or conduct that offend them. A majority of the Michigan justices found the MSU ordinance was even broader in scope than the Houston ordinance.

“Like the ordinance that the United States Supreme Court invalidated in Hill, the verbal disruptions that the MSU ordinance criminalizes are not limited to those containing fighting words or obscene language,” Justice Diane M. Hathaway wrote for the Michigan court majority. “Instead, the MSU ordinance explicitly criminalizes any disruption of the normal activity of persons or entities carrying out activities for or with MSU. Not only does the ordinance fail to limit the types of disruptions that are prohibited, it also protects a much broader class of individuals than the ordinance at issue in Hill.”

Getting to the point of a state supreme court reversal from a 2008 case is no mean feat.  Had Rapp not been capable of representing himself, the cost of pursuing the appeals would have been prohibitive. There aren’t too many people willing to throw that much time and money into appeals, the outcome of which is never certain, no matter how irritating the arrest, conviction and sentence.  For most people, life goes on.

Rapp wasn’t going with the program.  Even though it meant he had to commit an enormous amount of personal time and resources into pursuing the appeal, he did.  While he tried to obtain compensation for his ultimate success, it didn’t happen.

The majority pointed out that other statutes already prohibit physical assault, so the MSU ordinance in large part criminalizes speech. Rapp did lose his argument that the state should pay the costs he incurred defending himself against a prosecution based on an unconstitutional statute. The justices found no statutory basis for awarding such costs in a criminal case.

Of course, when a defendant goes pro se, this is to be expected.  He would have had to pay another lawyer for his services, and even though he might have been awarded costs since he prevailed, that would have been a huge, and likely insurmountable, gamble.  Such is the nature of American litigation.

The big cases, the ones involving huge amounts of money or a monstrously severe sentence, receive attention.  Whether litigants are willing to pay, or lawyers are willing to take a chance, these are the cases that go up on appeal and are fought tooth and nail. They deal with big laws and big issues, and eventually are hashed out.

It’s the little laws that are rarely subject to review.  The fines aren’t big enough. Nobody goes to prison for life because of them.  Neither defendant nor lawyer are willing to commit time and resources toward them, even though it’s the little laws that impact the vast majority of people.  Consider, for example, how many felonies occur compared to how many local infractions.

And so local ordinances that are poorly conceived, terribly worded and infringe on constitutional rights are rarely subject to scrutiny.  Aside from a few organizations, like the ACLU or Public Citizen, dedicated to fighting the fight, large or small, to make a point, there are few who would even bother.  And so these unconstitutional ordinances remain, and ordinary people are punished for the exercise of constitutional rights.

But not this time.  A big-time tip of the hat to Jared Rapp, who now practices liquor law and has a company called RGI Brands/FRÊ Spirits, for going the distance.  While he may have fought his own case, he won it for everyone. Well done.

H/T FritzMuffKnuckle