Ban of assistant attorney general from University of Michigan campus raises questions about trespass policy
University of Michigan police officers issued a trespass warning to Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell last month that bans him from U-M's 3,000-acre Ann Arbor campus. That ban is indefinite, and U-M is under no obligation to let Shirvell visit campus again. Shirvell, a U-M alumnus accused of harassing the university’s openly gay student body president for months, has maintained his actions constitute protected speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Andrew Shirvell, seen in this Michigan Daily photo at a Michigan Student Assembly meeting, is now banned from U-M's campus.
He is among at least 3,300 individuals who can be arrested if they step foot on U-M property. Most of those trespassed by U-M are campus outsiders who have been charged with a crime.
“This is not a court. It’s not a criminal process,” said U-M Deputy Police Chief Joe Piersante. “If you come back after the warning, you are subject to arrest.”
The campus trespass policy grants the Department of Public Safety blanket authority to permanently ban individuals from the public university. Only one person, the director of campus police, can rescind or modify a trespass warning.
The Shirvell case has raised questions about civil rights and the trespass ordinance. “It seems to me there’s a serious question as to whether the police has a legitimate basis for excluding him,” said Robert Sedler, a Wayne State University law professor and civil rights attorney. “The simple fact that someone says ‘I feel threatened’ is not enough.”
Shirvell isn’t facing any criminal charges. But both Shirvell and Michigan Student Assembly President Chris Armstrong will be in court Monday, where a judge will decide whether to issue a restraining order to keep Shirvell away from Armstrong.
“Before we try him in the court of public opinion, let’s see what the court decides on Monday in terms of factual information justifying a personal protection order,” said Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
Regardless of that outcome, the trespass warning will stand unless U-M Public Safety Director Ken Magee repeals it. Shirvell has asked for a meeting to appeal the Sept. 14 trespass warning, but one hasn’t yet been scheduled.
Kaplan, who reviewed the trespass policy, said it raises civil rights concerns.
“It needs more objective criteria, so people exercising First Amendment rights aren’t being banned from public places because the university or DPS doesn’t like what they say,” Kaplan said.
Some say that’s exactly what happened to them.
At least one former employee and one former student have pending civil lawsuits against the school involving the trespass policy, among other issues. They claim they complained about their superiors before being labeled a threat and banned from campus, claims U-M attorneys deny.
Police and U-M officials say trespass warnings are always issued in good faith. They say it’s their job to keep the campus of roughly 32,000 employees and 42,000 students safe from ill-intentioned outsiders and sometimes from each other.
The policy: A permanent ban
The trespass warning is a powerful tool. Those who violate it can face misdemeanor charges punishable by a maximum $250 fine and/or 30 days in jail, said Konrad Siller, an assistant prosecuting attorney for Washtenaw County. U-M police said they interview rather than arrest most trespassers they find on campus.
Between 2007 and 2009, roughly 200 to 300 individuals a year were trespassed, while 23 to 33 were arrested under the policy, records show.
“If they are stealing, if they are threatening people or assaulting people, then we read them the trespass to keep them from coming back on campus and committing crimes on campus and victimizing our community,” Piersante said.
Each of U-M’s 56 sworn police officers have discretion to read or mail trespass warnings. The policy permanently bans a person from campus and various other properties throughout the state and nation. Or police can ban individuals from smaller areas like a building floor, a whole building or a section of campus. Shirvell, for example, is now prohibited from stepping foot on any property owned or managed by U-M, said Diane Brown, a campus police spokeswoman. That includes the University of Michigan Health System and assorted clinics. Once issued, the person ticketed can request a hearing to present his or her case to Magee in the hopes of getting the warning modified or rescinded.
“We have offered the appeals process to be more user-friendly to our community, basically,” Piersante said. “There is no stipulation in state law that says you have to have an appeals process. State law says you are trespassing, then you are subject to arrest.”
Individuals who disagree with their treatment can bring grievances to an elected, independent police oversight committee of U-M students, faculty and staff members. The committee’s powers are advisory only. Magee, who declined to be interviewed for this story, often agrees to modify the warning for members of the campus community to a more specific area of campus, Brown said. Magee reports to an associate vice president at U-M.
Police officers at other campuses like Eastern Michigan University also have the power to trespass individuals from the school’s property. And similarly, only the director of the EMU Police Department, Greg O’Dell, can reverse a warning after meeting with the trespassed individual. But unlike the trespass policy at U-M, which can ban a person “in perpetuity” from campus, trespass warnings from EMU expire after one year. There are currently 80 individuals trespassed from the EMU campus, O’Dell said.
U-M police say it’s much more common to ban campus outsiders than alumni, students or employees. An AnnArbor.com analysis of three years of daily incident logs confirmed more typical examples included:
• Panhandlers found at the Michigan Union, the Diag, libraries, parking structures and other campus buildings have been banned. For example, police questioned a woman who was panhandling on campus in November 2008. She told police her friends were taking laptops from all over the university campus, then handing them off to another man for money or drugs. She was ordered not to return.
• People with no apparent business at the University of Michigan Health System are frequently trespassed. A man wandering around a floor of the University Hospital in January 2008 had a record for breaking and entering, escape from prison and receiving stolen property. Police trespassed him from the hospital. High-profile events sometimes lead to trespass warnings, records show.
• The April 20, 2008, Dalai Lama visit to the U-M campus drew a man wearing a T-shirt that read, “This shirt is a munition.” Members of the crowd told police they overheard him making threatening statements against the spiritual leader. Campus police questioned him, confiscated his ticket and issued the man a trespass warning. He told police he had radioactive material in his car and planned to use it to make a nuclear random number generator. The trespass policy is also used on rare occasion on the school’s own employees or students, police said. Some of those examples include:
• A student was trespassed at Michigan Stadium in August 2009 after sneaking in with a friend visiting from China. The student said Magee reversed the warning a few weeks later.
• A female lab specialist called campus police in April 2008 to report her former boss, a prestigious diabetes researcher, had spread false rumors about her attempting to destroy stem cell research involving mice, police documents show. Her job in his lab had been cut the previous year due to funding, and he asked her to stop visiting the lab, he told police. After she called, police trespassed the woman from the building where she formerly worked. The director of public safety modified the warning to include only the researcher’s floor a few weeks later.
The trespass policy states officers should avoid issuing warnings to students, faculty and staff, except for “extenuating circumstances,” described in the language of the policy as: “posing an immediate threat to others, criminal prosecution for other crimes, the Student Code of Conduct or other university disciplinary action.”
Andrew Shirvell: U-M alumnus banned for harassment
Student leader Chris Armstrong described feeling threatened by Shirvell in a request for a personal protection order he filed on Sept. 13. The first openly gay student body president wrote Shirvell verbally attacked him on a Facebook page and a blog, and then in person at events and near Armstrong’s off-campus home.
Andrew Shirvell (left) and Chris Armstrong (right) were at the same protest earlier this year.
The Department of Public Safety issued Shirvell a trespass warning Sept. 14 in person, though Brown declined to say where. Police based the trespass on complaints and an investigation involving Shirvell’s “potential harassment, stalking or intimidation” of Armstrong, Brown said. A phone number for Shirvell phone listed in court documents was no longer working last week; his attorney did not return a call seeking comment. A spokesperson for the attorney general said the office can’t comment on issues that occurred in Shirvell’s personal life. Shirvell is on leave from his job, the spokesperson said. The Shirvell-Armstrong case may be the most high-profile example of someone from the U-M community who can now be arrested, ticketed or told to leave if caught on campus. But there are others. Andrei Borisov: Professor trespassed and arrested
Andrei Borisov arrived at the U-M Medical School in 1994 from the Russian Academy of Sciences as a renowned researcher in the field of cellular cardiology. Police trespassed the professor following a Sept. 4, 2008, termination hearing. Borisov, 52 at the time, left U-M in handcuffs. Police banned him from U-M for nine months before modifying the warning to exclude Borisov from certain buildings on the medical campus. Borisov filed a civil lawsuit in August 2009 in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. He alleges he gathered evidence between 2006 and 2008 that his mentor, Mark Russell, plagiarized his research in reports to federal funding agencies involving grants worth $1.7 million, and that Borisov was removed from projects without prior approval from the funding agencies. A police report states two campus officers were asked to be present at a Sept. 4, 2008, termination hearing on the third floor of the Medical Science Research Building, where Borisov worked in the department of pediatrics. At that meeting, department chair Valerie Castle told Borisov there were concerns about his behavior, including “making comments that were perceived to be threatening,” and “following a staff member to their vehicle,” the police report states. In his lawsuit, Borisov says that behavior was fabricated to get rid of him and silence his allegations of fraud. Castle told Borisov he could resign or lose his job, according to the police report. After the meeting, confusion ensued when police escorted Borisov to his office to clear out his personal belongings, a report states. Police described Borisov as acting suspicious and wrote they told the professor he would need to make an appointment later to determine which items were his and which belonged to the university. The report says Borisov charged two campus officers and was arrested for trespassing. Both Borisov and an officer received medical treatment following the confrontation, the report states. Later, prosecutors charged Borisov with attempted assault of a police officer, disturbing the peace and resisting and obstructing police. A jury acquitted him of those charges in April 2009. Separately, Borisov sued his former colleagues for defamation, fraud and false imprisonment. He has asked for a jury trial. In their response to Borisov’s lawsuit, U-M attorneys say the professor’s performance hadn’t met expectations for two years. Due to the criminal charges filed following the confrontation, an offer for a job in a different university department was withdrawn. U-M officials won’t comment on the case due to the pending litigation, and Borisov declined to comment. Both the U-M Ann Arbor chapter of the American Association of University Professors and members of the university’s faculty governance committee investigated the incident.
A 20-page April 2010 AAUP report concluded the university infringed upon Borisov’s academic freedom. The union supported Borisov’s claim that he was falsely accused of threatening behavior, the report states. A 55-page report by a panel from within the Senate Advisory Committee of University Affairs also supported Borisov. SACUA never adopted that report. In a March 2010 letter to former SACUA chair Michael Thouless, then-Provost Teresa Sullivan called the report “one-sided,” as well as “unfair, unwise and harmful.” She pointed out those being accused of misconduct by Borisov couldn’t participate in the group’s investigation due to his civil lawsuit.
Linda Martinson: Student deemed a threat At 54, Linda Martinson said she was thrilled to begin an accelerated second career nursing program at U-M.
But in early October 2007, about a month after she began the program, Martinson complained a clinical professor had created a hostile learning environment and asked for a transfer, she said.
The relationship between Martinson and her professors, supervisors and fellow students deteriorated rapidly after that, court documents allege.
Linda Martinson is pictured with U-M President Mary Sue Coleman at the December 2004 graduation.
Photo courtesy of Linda Martinson
Over the next year, campus police issued Martinson three trespass warnings, and the School of Nursing expelled her.
Court documents show e-mails circulated among nursing school personnel and students in the fall of 2007, calling Martinson’s potential as a nurse into question.
Classmates described Martinson as difficult to work with, a poor group member, erratic and threatening, the documents show. Examples of that behavior from student e-mails to nursing school personnel included arguing with School of Nursing group members during assignments, talking in close proximity to them, and creating an “air of discomfort,” during group assignments and study sessions.
A civil lawsuit filed by Martinson in federal court in September 2009 alleges nursing school personnel solicited those students’ complaints “to try and create a false impression of an emergency to get an immediate expulsion.”
E-mail exchanges in October and November 2007 indicate discussion occurred among high-ranking U-M officials about whether Martinson could be expelled under a mental health withdrawal policy or for threatening behavior.
If she couldn’t be expelled for mental health reasons, a review could take place to determine whether Martinson’s actions posed an immediate danger to campus, the director of the office of student conflict resolution wrote to the vice president of student affairs, a university attorney and others in an Oct. 17, 2007, e-mail.
A police report shows nursing personnel called campus police to stand by at a meeting for a potentially “violent person” the same day. An associate dean told Martinson she made unauthorized and unsupervised visits and argued with staff on the hospital floor where her clinical took place, in violation of school policy, the police report states. Police read Martinson a trespass warning banning her from that floor, and the associate dean told her a review board would be investigating her conduct, the police report states.
“The students and staff are complaining about her and feel that she might become violent; however, no threats have been made by Ms. Martinson at this time,” the police report states.
Due to the pending lawsuit, U-M officials won’t comment on the case.
Martinson tells a different version of the events.
She said campus police escorted her to the Oct. 17, 2007, meeting from a classroom where had been taking a test.
“I felt absolutely horrible,” Martinson said. “I had no idea what was about to take place. I knew the chance of me surviving whatever they had in store for me was slim.”
Martinson got a second trespass warning that banned her from all university buildings on Nov. 13, 2007, three days before she was expelled. She appealed the decision to expel her, but it was upheld on Aug. 28, 2008, her suit states.
She received a third trespass warning in the mail dated Aug. 28, 2008, banning her from the entire campus “because your behavior has been perceived by persons on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan as threatening and disruptive,” the letter signed by former campus police director William Bess states.
Martinson, now 57, denies she was a threat to anyone.
After her dismissal, she filed multiple lawsuits in Washtenaw County Circuit Court against students in her program, but later dropped them.
Her federal civil lawsuit against U-M and a number of the nursing personnel alleging violations of her due process rights is pending.
Magee modified all three trespass warnings in 2009, records show. Martinson is still banned from the Fleming Administration Building, School of Nursing buildings and the U-M Medical Center, unless she has a medical emergency or is seeking treatment, a Sept. 25, 2009, letter from Magee to Martinson states.
ACLU: Room for improvement in policy
Those and other examples have Kaplan of the ACLU advocating for U-M to amend its policy.
The current policy has room for error and needs more objective criteria for trespassing and a more meaningful appeals process that’s not solely at the discretion of the public safety director, he said.
And because society reveres its public universities as forums for the free exchange of ideas, there are heightened concerns about banning individuals from one, Kaplan said.
“The university has an interest in assuring students and staff on campus are safe from physical harm,” Kaplan said. “We don’t want to utilize one’s speech that doesn’t cross the line as a means to bar someone from the campus.”
AnnArbor.com reporter Juliana Keeping can be reached at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528.
Comments
Bob Bethune
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.
This situation is egregiously open to abuse. In particular, the ability to ban someone from the UM Hospitals could be fatal, since UM is the primary emergency care facility in the city.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Wed, Oct 27, 2010 : 5:04 a.m.
"Shirvell, for example, is now prohibited from stepping foot on any property owned or managed by U-M, said Diane Brown, a campus police spokeswoman. That includes the University of Michigan Health System and assorted clinics.".... gummint's individualized death panel? good grief charlie-umich!
Matt Cooper
Tue, Oct 26, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.
@trespass: Your scenario implies that he committed one crime, trespass, then tried to flee. That scenario is contradicted both by the fact that they never charged him with trespass (the prosecutor knew he could not win that case) and that he was acquitted of all charges after the jury heard the tape recording. Not to sound argumentative, but, 1. And how exactly do you know wether or not Borisov was under arrest? Were you there? Did you read the police report? Were you involved in that case in any way? Do you even know what constitutes an arrest? 2. "a fiction made up by the officers only after Dr. Borisov was seen in the emergency room for his injuries and filed a brutality report". Again I ask, were you there? You are basically calling the DPS officer a liar. Based on what? Are you a member of DPS? Did you personally investigate the allegations made by DPS? Are you a law enf. officer with inside knowledge of the case? 3. The fact of the matter is that MOST cases in which the trespass act is read DO NOT lead to a charge of trespass. So for you to use the fact that he was not charged with trespass as proof of either his truthfulness, or the lies you claim DPS told is simply foolish nonsense. Also, the fact that Borisov was acquitted does not in any way mean he is innocent, nor is it any proof of wrongdoing on the part of DPS. An acquittal only means there was not enough evidence presented at trial to win a conviction. That is why acquittal means "not guilty" and not "innocent". Borisov is anything but innocent. But with all your insider knowledge of the investigation, I'm sure you knew that.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Oct 26, 2010 : 9:10 a.m.
Hey AA.com or anyone else, annarbor.com/news/clearance-rates/index.php#comment-163403 Any idea of the # of crimes on campus and the UMPD's closure rates?
Brad
Tue, Oct 26, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.
Sure I understand that the U can police their own property. And I understand that being duly sworn, they can enforce Michigan laws on non-U property. But I'm still incredulous that you could be cited for trespassing on any "adjacent property". Seems insane.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Oct 26, 2010 : 6:27 a.m.
Your last example is incorrect. While someone at the SOS can ask you to leave or might have you removed from the premisis I highly doubt that they could order or enforce a tresspass edict upon any citizen who has business to do there. This would be the same as other public institutions such as libraries for which there is a plethora of examples and suits where undesirables like the homeless are banned but the courts have upheld their rights to access. I think many keep forgetting in their arguments that the U of M IS A PUBLIC INSTITUTION. If they use certain tools to indiscriminately ban people from their property and can not justify such actions in court then their actions are both illegal and discriminatory.
johnnya2
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 10:59 p.m.
" law enforcement officer has unfettered discretion to exclude anyone he wants from premises open to the public." This is just plain untrue. They can exclude people who have been asked to leave or not enter THEIR property, in much the same way YOu ccan do exactly the same thing. The warning is binding on all UM property until UM decides it wants to lift it (the same as for YOU on your property). If a person were arrested under the trespass warning they DO have the ability to have it heard in court, in much the same way if somebody did the same thing on your property. The problem all people here seem to forget is UM still controls its own property. In reality, I could say I pay taxes for the Interstate highway system, so i want to be able to walk down the center median. I CANT. I actually pay taxes for Ford Field in Detroit. I can not say I want to enter at MY discretion. If you make a scene at the SOS office, they can ask to have local law enforcement give you a trespass warning. If you are not willing to heed that advice you can and will be arrested. In fact, based on your arguments, any person could walk into a dorm, class room, the CCRB, Michigan Stadium, Crisler or any other spot based on their desire to be there. If Shirvell wants to protest at Necto (which he has), he can do that, if he wants to protest at Aut Bar in the public square, he is free as well. BUT he has no property rights at the U currently, In fact, he has no voice in the MSA elections which only include CURRENT students, not past students or potential students or wanna be students.
UtrespassM
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.
"The trespass warring are always issued in good faith." Why did he(the former boss)spread false rumors? Why did she(the former staff)get a trespass ticket by reporting the incident? Was she an UM employee and doing medical research when she was read the trespass? A female lab specialist called campus police in April 2008 to report her former boss, a prestigious diabetes researcher, had spread false rumors.... After she called, police trespassed the woman from the building where she formerly worked. The director of public safety modified the warning to include only the researchers floor a few weeks later.
Roadman
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 4:49 p.m.
Well said, Dennis P. My key issue is that a law enforcement officer has unfettered discretion to exclude anyone he wants from premises open to the public. This discretion is unreviewable at the administrative level and invites the potential for invidious discrimination. There are no enunciated standards that I am aware of the officer must follow no are there any known requirements that specific findings be made before such banishment occurs. Law enforcement officers are cloaked with an essentially quasi-adjudicative function to exclude persons that maay be deemed "greasy". The state supreme court has barred law enforcement officers from sitting in such capacities e.g. the Driver's License Appeal Board. Very weighty constitutional issues are implicated in the Shirvell case.
DennisP
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.
I don't know as I would agree that the issuance of a Trespass Warning would trigger due process rights necessarily. "Trespass" the poster made a very enlightening post that contrasts a very specific law (MCL 752.581) pertinent to trespass on the property of colleges and universities in Michigan with MCL 750.552--the general trespass law that is a codification of common law trespass written largely to apply to private parties and private landowners but not in any way expressly limited in that manner. We have two considerations here. First, can a police officer issue a formal written warning to a member of the public that advises if that person sets foot on public property, that person would be subject to arrest and prosecution? Second, are there any limitations on the ability to do so when it involves a person who has not been charged with any crime and who seeks no more access than is allowed others of the same status and relationship to the university (general public, ticket holder, patient, guest, employee, student, etc)? I'd say in the first case, a police officer can always issue a warning without triggering due process rights. Those would commence upon arrest. Frankly, the police could probably elect to arrest most anyone at any time. Whether the arrest is lawful and with probable cause, whether the allegations form the basis for a lawful charge and whether the party is guilty of the charge are all questions for a court of law where all the due process rights kick in. So, there isn't any denial of due process simply because there really isn't any state action aside from a "warning". This is no different than a traffic stop where the officer issues a warning. If he never sees you breaking a speed limit again, you're golden. If he does, you're nailed and your due process rights to fight the ticket will kick in. The second matter is a little more disconcerting and represents what the ACLU and others are talking about. The unbridled and arbitrary authority to issue a trespass warning without standards to anyone for any activity the officer deems unbecoming to the University (or his superior civilian overseers so deem) is chilling. It isn't just a matter of ownership of property. The public owns the property. The public has some right to expect the Regents to maintain order and protect that property. However, where the public is allowed general entry, all members of the public who are not engaged in some crime or civil infraction should retain that right. In other words, the very fact the U-M is a State institution should limit the scope of the general trespass law (750.552) as a matter of right of assembly and right of expression and the implied related rights of reasonably free travel and access. It is for that reason that the more specific trespass law is a higher standard that requires some level of threat, harm or failure to adhere to policies and procedures of the institution in order to enforce that action of trespass. In this instance, I question whether the general trespass law is appropriate for use on "public lands" unless limited in its scope. To the extent that a person is not engaged in other crimes or civil infractions or otherwise presents a clear and imminent danger, I don't think that person should be held as trespassing if he or she is going anywhere others in his or her position can also go--be it a museum, the stadium, the hospital, library, or the like. This is identical to the old Westerns where the sheriff tells the stranger to get out of town before sunset. Even when the undesirable hasn't done anything but just "looks" like trouble or says things that upset the leaders of the town. This kind of authority can form the basis for discrimination and disparate treatment. It may be that of the 3300 issued such warnings, most are minorities. It may be that a substantial number were issued warnings because they had grievances or they had opinions others didn't share. Even if none of that is the case, what prevents it from happening? A public institution should be held to a different standard of openness than private lands.
oprichniki
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.
Can an expert explain the difference between the DPS and the gestapo?
Mick52
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 3:13 p.m.
@trespass Just because there is a campus trespass law, that does not mean a U police forces can only rely on it. There is no abuse of the trespass elaw. There is no "claim" to jurisdiction. It is clearly noted in the statute that gave U police forces authority. It is all university property, included leased property, and the adjacent streets. Borisov and Martinson can be asked to leave at any time and do not have an implicit right to refuse. In re to Borisov, police were there at the request of a department. If a department head requests a person leave that is valid too. AA.com reports he had resigned (to save being fired) and was read trespass and arrested upon resisting. He is suing, which is his right. A court will decide his issue. There is too much being made of the trespass statute used by UM. "Vast powers." It is a state law that can be used by anyone. The law and its practice is based on the cooperation of the person requested to leave. UMPD is further cooperative in that they allow anyone read the warning a chance to appeal. I concur that the appeal meeting should be held within a reasonable time.
PhillyCheeseSteak
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.
My son is one of those 3,000+ individuals who have received Trespass Warnings from U of M. He was 16 years old and practicing soccer (by himself) on U of M property. I never realized that the Trespass Warning was for an indefinite period of time; I just assumed it was for 1 year! **As a side note, he made the decision to practice soccer on U of M property after he was kicked off of his high school's (Pioneer) soccer field. Why does the high school allow the public to use the track and tennis courts, but their own students are forbidden to train on the soccer field?
Roadman
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 2:01 p.m.
The trespass issue should be litigated in Court by the ACLU. The circuit court itself has barred a number of people, including those investigating alleged corruption, from entering the court and posting photos so county employees can recognize those under a trespass order.See www.a2buzz.org. A number of political activists have been banned from U-M. Since when can a law enforcement officer be granted authority to prevent a person from entering into a public place with no right of review? One thing that strikes me is once you are on the trespass list, there is a certain taint to your reputation. I support Kaplan's positions. Let's get a lawsuit filed in federal court.
UtrespassM
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 10:30 a.m.
The trespass policy of UM is a effective tool, but the DPS should not abuse thier power and use it for discrimination and reteriation.
demistify
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 9:32 a.m.
@Old Salt, The Diag is NOT a public street. The U has the right to exclude from it anyone whom it deems to have no business there. The U ordinarily allows access to the public at large, but that is voluntary on its part. The U sets a number of restrictions on activities and behavior on the Diag (no accosting or blocking traffic, no signs, etc.) and enforces those rules.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.
@Matt Cooper Not sure why you think I disagree with you. The only difference between waht you wrote and I wrote was whether or not a security officer can detain someone. I agree that you can prevent access to a property. If you would review the link that I provided you would also see that the "detain" portion was addressed. Your experience and opinion do offer a valuable perspective but might I suggest that next time you back them up with some reference that others may evaluate said personal thoughts with?
Killosaur
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.
I'm especially interested in the nuclear powered random number generator. That's awesome.
Bcar
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 7:21 a.m.
Yet another example of how UMs libtard politics get into everything Really??? A guy has an opinion that happens to differ with the left-wingnuts of UM so they try to ban him?? Come on. Grow up and get over yourself UM!! Sure I dont agree with what the guy said, but hes no danger, he just disagrees with the almighty-can-never-be-wrong UM
Brad
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 6:53 a.m.
So I'm hearing that if you've been "trespassed" and are on non-University, public property that's simply adjacent to their property that you can be cited. I have a hard time believing that to be true. Maybe the author can check into that?
trespass
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 6:18 a.m.
@Matt Cooper- It may not be clear to you from the article but Dr. Borisov was not under arrest until he supposedly tried to flee and was stopped by the officers (a fiction made up by the officers only after Dr. Borisov was seen in the emergency room for his injuries and filed a brutality report). Your scenario implies that he committed one crime, trespass, then tried to flee. That scenario is contradicted both by the fact that they never charged him with trespass (the prosecutor knew he could not win that case) and that he was acquitted of all charges after the jury heard the tape recording.
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 3:01 a.m.
@Tru2Blu76 your understanding of first amendment protections is very lacking. You may want to brush up on free speech protections.
Old Salt
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 11:26 p.m.
The University of Michigan is public property,how can they ban citizens from being on the property. If and of these 3000 persons step onto the diag can they be arrested?
bobr
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:05 p.m.
If a PPO is issued against Shirvell, that will effectively keep him out of the area and if his compulsion brings him outside Mr. Armstrong's home again at 1:30 AM, he'll get picked independently of the trespass order. It's a shame he can't find happiness with his own family and leave people alone.
Matt Cooper
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:52 p.m.
Also: @trespass: "Note that they claimed Borisov was trespassing but at the same time they say he assaulted them by trying to flee (you cannot trespass and flee at the same time)." Actually, yes you can. If, for instance, an officer decides you are to be placed under arrest and puts his hand on you in an attempt to handcuff you, and you strike him in an attempt to get away, you have 2 crimes. Assault and fleeing and eluding. Or, if you are trespassing and are about to be taken into custody and simply run away, guess what. Trespass and fleeing and eluding.
Matt Cooper
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:46 p.m.
@ricebrnr: In response to your comments about what you think security personnel can and cannot do, please allow me to comment. I was, for a period of roughly 2 years, security supervisor at the old Beyer Hospital in Ypsilanti shourtly before it was sold to and became a bariatric treatment facility. I also have several years of other security experience in other area. A couple things you need to understand: 1. Security officers do in fact have the same powers of normal everyday citizens. If you are robbed and you can get the person down on the ground or in some other way restrained, you have the right to hold that person and detain them from leaving pending arrival of law enforcement who will then determine if that person will be placed under arrest or not. This is not considered an arrest and does not require a law enforcement degree, license or other special requirement or training. 2. Hospital security personnel, acting as representatives of the institution, can in fact read the trespass act and enforce it in regards to people both entering onto and leaving from the property. This also does not require any licenses or special training. 3. Hospitals, as with all other businesses, are entitled to monitor and regulate the flow of any traffic anywhere on their property. Simply because it is a public university does not mean people can come and go as they please, nor does it mean they don't have the right to remove, detain or otherwise expel persons from the property. I might also suggest you study a bit about what constitutes an arrest and what does not.
trespass
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:14 p.m.
demystify- due process is expected but absent. Not only that but the campus police can put you in jail and prosecute you on pure fiction. Note that they claimed Borisov was trespassing but at the same time they say he assaulted them by trying to flee (you cannot trespass and flee at the same time). The never prosecuted the underlying charge of trespassing but instead charged the fictitious charges of resisting arrest and assault. He was acquitted but only because he had been warned to carry a tape recorder.
demistify
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 6:07 p.m.
U of M is an educational institution, not a public park. Just as much as any elementary school, it has the right to restrict access to its buildings and grounds (despite some posts above, we are not discussing public streets that cut through campus and over which the city and not the U has jurisdiction). The U has no obligation to allow anyone other than faculty, students and staff to enter its premises; if it allows any, it is free to limit them in any way it pleases, without need for justification. It can also set rules for the use of its facilities by those affiliated with it, and vary them according to the facility (e.g. card-access to labs containing hazardous materials, or to a dormitory). When sanctions are applied to staff or students (as in the allegations in the story), some sort of "due process" is expected. The overheated rhetoric about the constitutional rights of trespassers is ludicrous.
trespass
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 5:55 p.m.
@15crown00- The trespass warning is in effect anywhere that the UM police claim jurisdiction. Thus, if Shirvell has a traffic stop on Eisenhower parkway near State street by the campus police, he is trespassing. The UM police stopped a woman at just such a location and they claim jurisdiction over any street or sidewalk that is adjacent to university property (owned or leased). If you protest on a "public" sidewalk, you need to keep in mind which side of the street you are on. Campus police claim jurisdiction if the sidewalk is on the same side of the street as their building.
kurtkoeh
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 4:54 p.m.
I think U-M needs to get more specific with these trespass warnings in both time and place. Banning someone from ALL U-M property can lead to problems especially if you include the hospitals and health clinics. If you had a real health emergency are you really going to arrest them for being taken on campus to the U-M hospital by an ambulance? Also, no wonder panhandlers congregate on Liberty and the part of State Street just north of campus. U-M kicks them off the campus and they hang out across the street. That doesn't do much to address panhandling. Trespass warnings are a very necessary and useful tool for public safety. They just need to be more careful about the details.
CynicA2
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 4:33 p.m.
I am no defender of Mr. Shirvell's questionable actions, but the UM's control freak behavior is just as odious. I think one of the definitions of "arrogance" in the dictionary is "The University of Michigan". The more they become like the overbearing corporations they supply with fresh grist for their corporate mills each May, the worse they get. The Big U is just another subsidiary of Corporate America, Inc. GIven the high-handed way they treat people, in general- whether students, faculty, or staff- it certainly isn't surprising to read about some disgruntled soul taking pot shots at the administration building with a deer rifle, every 10 years or so. In fact, the wonder is that it doesn't occur more often.
trespass
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 3:05 p.m.
@Mick52- you cite the 1931 general trespass statute, which is indeed what the UM enforces, however, when the UM had the BAMN strike in 1970 the general trespass statute was deemed inadequate to ban the strikers from campus. As a result the UM lobbied the legislature for a new law that applied to trespassers at 4 year Universities. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(q3idnajoy1ogs245rwfflp3v))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-26-of-1970&highlight=752.581. The principle difference between the general trespass statute and the one specifically for Universities is that the "trespasser" must be in violation of the properly promulgated rules of the University. Dr. Borisov and Linda Martinson had not been found to be in violation of any University rules at the time they were read the trespass warning. UM police chose to enforce the 1931 statute rather than the statute written just for Univerisities because it is easier for them to abuse the privilege.
Pika
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 2:53 p.m.
Good for UM - they should enforce their trespass laws. As the conservatives are always saying - it is their property - they have a right to make the rules.
Rod Johnson
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.
Does someone need to break a law before you can tell them you're not welcome at your house? This is UM's house. It does seem crazy to say he can't use the hospital. What if he had health insurance that mandated he gets services from the hospital?
Seasoned Cit
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 1:28 p.m.
Just another example of PC Police at work on campus as at NPR. "Diversity" followers sure aren't as tolerant as they expect others to be.
richard watkins
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.
This whole business of a trespass order good into perpetuity is fine, as far as it goes. The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. The Lord told Abraham that "the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons, unto the fourth, even the fifth generation," which would take us back, roughly, to somewhere around the Civil War by my calculations. After all, everybody knows the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. Luckily, nobody keeps records as good as cops keep records(we know that from the Nuremberg trials and the Inquisition) so there should be little difficulty tracking down the trespassers' descendants. Some of them may try to weasel out of it by claiming they didn't do anything, but since great-great-great-grandpa didn't immediately appeal to whoever was then the Director of U-M Security, and that Director is dead now and all hope of appeal is over, the current-day malefactors are just out of luck. By the way, I was cheered, not to mention surprised, by the comment from Mick52 about the trespass order in perpetuity being backed by Michigan law. But I was sadly disappointed when I used his link to find that the reference says nothing like that at all. Do your homework, Mick52, and show us the law that will let us deal with these bums forever! I think annarbor.com should post a pdf format application for the guard positions at the dentention camps, by the way.
InsideTheHall
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 1:05 p.m.
Exactly what law has the ASST. AG broken?
Speechless
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.
A limited campus trespass order against someone like Shirvell sounds appropriate, given what's been reported about his actions up to this point. Also, Chris Armstrong can also continue to pursue a PPO in the civil courts. Nonetheless, as this article brings forth by focusing on a few examples in some detail, the university serially engages in its own Shirvell-like behavior. U-M's bureaucracy has raised administrative paranoia to an official level in its policy and actions, while taking control-freak measures to new heights. If an individual in a position of authority were to act along the lines of the U-M administration, I think that responsible psychologists would feel strongly inclined to recommend professional help before any more damage is done. The university will try to make the person in question look unstable, so as to deflect attention from hyper-control and paranoia underlying its own actions. A pattern won't be clear when looking the Shirvell example alone, but will become more apparent when including additional cases, such as Martinson and Borisov. In these latter two situations, university bureaucrats chose to confront each in a humiliating manner designed to provoke a bad reaction. Then they could quickly be labeled as "unwell" and banned from campus.
Mick52
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:30 p.m.
This is a very poorly written article. It relies too heavily on the UMPD's "policy" without noting that the UM policy is based on Michigan law, found at MCL 750.552. It is a state law and applies everywhere. Here is a link for you if interested: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(xy5wro45ypdjw545g1z4u53s))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-552 We do not see any language about the criminal law until well down into the story. So what the UMPD is doing is enforcing the law, not simply following a policy. The law is quite lenient, it allows a property holder or his/her agent the ability to request a person leave. If you leave you cannot be arrested unless you return. If you refuse to leave you can be arrested. Prof Kaplan is way off base in regard to his comments on the "policy." There is no need to change the policy to anything but what the law states. Of course, the ACLU wants it to be their interpretation of the law. It works fine. You can also be arrested if you refuse to leave upon request as per the statute. It applies to any property. The AAPD used to have a similar form for owners to use. A key part of the law is the requirement that the person investigated does not have the authority to be where confronted. If so, then the law may not apply. It can be a great crime fighting tool. For example, often staff call the police and report suspicious persons wandering about the buildings. If the police find the suspect and upon getting ID find he was read the warning earlier, he can be arrested and thus searched often revealing stolen property. In practice, not much happens, the jail is too full for inmates charged with mere trespassing and very few get a jail sentence. It is a law on the books and can be used by any police agency. Large universities are magents to thiefs and violent criminals, homeless folks, and verbal trouble makers so the law is quite useful. With Shirvell it has always been a question of free speech v though police. Looks more like the thought police are running this rather than the real police.
Speechless
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.
"... He is among at least 3,300 individuals who can be arrested if they step foot on U-M property...." 3,300?  Wow.  Even Nixon didn't have this many enemies. "... But unlike the trespass policy at U-M, which can ban a person "in perpetuity" from campus, trespass warnings from EMU expire after one year. There are currently 80 individuals trespassed from the EMU campus...." Based on the respective number of persons who officials have "trespassed" on each campus, Ann Arbor is over 41 times more dangerous than Ypsilanti.
quetzalcoatl
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.
Who knew the University of Michigan Department of Public Safety had such vast powers? Let us use it. There are just oodles of objectionable people in Ann Arbor, and I say we turn U-M Security loose on all of them. We don't need to stop at the stinkin' borders of the University. Lord knows the namby-pamby AAPD hasn't done much to rid the streets of scum I don't like. U-M Security is above picayune considerations of due process and wishy-washy constitutional guarantees of free assembly. We will never again have to spend $50 million on a court building, because we won't need to have a court. Nettlesome frou-frous of our antiquated legal system like that court and the so-called "right" to confront an accuser in a public forum will be things of the past. All we need do is print up plenty of trespass orders, hand them out like Halloween candy to U-M Security, and we can say good-bye to all that. Now, having been trespassed into oblivion as far the sacred confines of Ann Arbor are concerned, some of these scrofulous curs may seek legal redress and summon up the gall to sue the University over this (as Mr. Shirvell almost certainly will). I say, Let them! The University has plenty of money. If it bankrupts U-M and causes them to recruit the class of, say, 2028 from the backs of matchbook covers, well, it's all in a good cause. Plus, staffing the new detention camps will go a long way toward easing the unemployment problem.
af3201sps
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:20 p.m.
@tdw I am not so sure about that either. Security guards can detain for shoplifting (and any citizen can for a felony) but for trespassing, I don't think so. Can you cite a state law that gives them that authority. I certainly may not be aware of it. The issue I was pointing out was that UM Hospital Security are civilians, not police officers and the UM grants them the same authority in regards to trespass. The UM has a police department for a reason and the guards at the hospital should have to call them if they want someone trespassed. I would feel more secure knowing a state sworn police officer was on seen handling a situation versus a security guard dressed up in a uniform that makes them look like a police officer.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.
@TDW "security officers do have the right to detain and enforce trepass.They can detain and handcuff people until police arrive,just as a store can ban people and detain them for shoplifting." Actually I'm not so sure about this. Preventing people entry in property you control is not the same as detaining people. My understanding is that Security Officers employed by a private entity and not endowed with any law enforcement certifications have no more authority to detain or lay hands on any other citizen as any other citizen. See this article: ammoland.com/2010/01/11/michigan-rules-for-arrest-advice-to-gun-owners/
ViSHa
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.
So Shirvell cannot also use any of the UM clinics, like say around Briarwood? Does this include UM Hospital ER? I guess i can see possibly banning him from near Armstrong's stomping grounds on campus but the medical areas seem a little harsh.
David
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 11:35 a.m.
I feel like this entire article is very biased...
tdw
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.
@af3201sps security officers do have the right to detain and enforce trepass.They can detain and handcuff people until police arrive,just as a store can ban people and detain them for shoplifting.
af3201sps
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 11:09 a.m.
I have absolutely no problem with the UM POLICE having the authority to remove and trespass people from UM property as long as there is a valid appeal process. I would like to know if the appeals process stops at Magee's office or if the trespass can be appealed above him (including to the UM Regents). As far as I can tell, the UM Police do a good job. Nobody ever really totally agrees with everything the police do, anywhere. Their actions (police officers) are routinely scrutinized and questioned. Also, do the Ann Arbor Police officers have the authority to trespass from certain areas of the city? The only problem I really have is that trespass authority at UM has extended to the security guards at the UM Hospital. They are not sworn police officers nor do they have to undergo a police academy to act in the capacity that they do. They are not a full service police department, only private citizens dressed in security guard uniforms. This story fails to address that issue. Hospital security guards portray themselves as cops by dressing like them and driving cars marked like a police car, but they have no more authority to arrest someone than the normal citizen. I do not think they should have ANY authority to trespass someone because they really have no training in proper police procedure or criminal law.
MorningGirl
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.
What rblaw said. Sheesh.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.
@Larry Per police.umich.edu/?s=about The University of Michigan Department of Public Safety (DPS) is a full service law enforcement agency. DPS Police Officers are licensed by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) and have the authority and responsibility to investigate, search, arrest and use reasonable force as necessary to protect persons and property and to enforce the laws of the State of Michigan and the Ordinance of the Regents of the University of Michigan. To provide comprehensive parking enforcement and crime prevention, DPS also employs Parking Enforcement Officers, Communications Officers, and Public Safety Officers who are not licensed to have the powers of arrest, but who do have specialty training in their areas of responsibility as well as first aid, CPR and the use of Automatic External Defibrillators (AED). University Police and Public Safety Officers patrol campus buildings and grounds, Housing Security officers specifically patrol residential facilities and Hospital Security Officers specifically patrol Hospital facilities. All patrols are designed to prevent and detect crimes and property loss from crime, fire and floods. Patrols are conducted 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Patrols are performed by officers on foot, in motor vehicles and on bicycles. The Department of Public Safety maintains a communication center to answer calls for services from the public, monitor intrusion, robbery, fire, elevator, temperature, and maintenance alarms for University buildings and monitor radio communications from a variety of University departments as well as other public safety agencies. Appropriate response is determined and necessary action is taken. The communication center is operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In general they are a fully accredited law enforcement agency with all powers thereof. The scary part is that thought they are a fully accredited law enforcement agency, the following seems to me that they are also a PRIVATE security force. "the authority and responsibility to investigate, search, arrest and use reasonable force as necessary to protect persons and property and to enforce ~ the Ordinance of the Regents of the University of Michigan." So where the Ordinances of the Regents may conflict with State laws, who does the UofM PD follow? I think we all have seen the answer.
Larry White
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.
The Campus Police seem to have unlimited authority. I was stopped by them for speeding on State St at Eisenhower enroute to Liberty. Exactly what is their jurisdiction?
Ricebrnr
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
No the article is about the U's continuing assault on basic human rights as affirmed in the US Constitution.
nickcarraweigh
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
U-M had a good thing going here for a long time, totalitarian-rule-wise, but I hope the imaginative legal theory underlying these "trespass orders" fails to fly when the university attempts to apply it against an actual lawyer. "This is not a court," says Deputy Chief Joe Bersante, and he's certainly got that right. It is a Star Chamber. Any of the 56 sworn police officers in the U-M Dept. of Public Safety can permanently bar anyone, for any reason, from the campus and "various other properties through the state and nation" just on their personal say so alone. Amazingly, it seems people who have actually had their day in court, and been acquitted of all charges that gave rise to the trespass order in the first place, are still barred from property U-M owns or "manages", apparently throughout the country and apparently in perpetuity. In Ann Arbor, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting U-M property; it "owns" almost 25 percent of the city's landmass. It seems to me if the University truly believed it had a legal leg to stand on, it wouldn't bother "trespassing" people, it would charge them and let a jury of their peers decide the issue. Asst. Attorney Gen. Andrew Shirvell strikes me as a strange young man, shrill in voicing ugly views. If I were student leader Chris Armstrong, I would not like Mr. Shirvell very much and I would probably petition a court for a personal protective order to legally keep him away from me. That's certainly his right. But keeping Mr. Shirvell, without a court order, from setting foot on any of 3,000 acres of property that belong to an institution Mr. Armstrong (and about 40,000 other people) happen to attend is pretty thin. I would suggest those who live or work in Ann Arbor try their very best not to rub a U-M security cop the wrong way, because as things stand now they are not only the cop, they are the judge and the jury. And all their verdicts are life sentences.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.
Umm the point of a PPO is that someone feel a threat on their life and well being, this was as much stated in the previous articles. If granted the dispassionate and blind justice agrees. "if they are threatening people or assaulting people, then we read them the trespass to keep them from coming back on campus and committing crimes on campus and victimizing our community, Piersante said." O yes if you are being threatened or assaulted, I'm very certain that you would wait for the chance or hope that someone calls the Campus Police. Then I am sure you will dispassionately wait as you are assaulted until such help arrives. Then I hope for your sake that they don't send any cocaine addicted ones to your rescue. "on an academic campus, where we value ideas, even unpopular ones." Self preservation, I guess this "unpopular" (and the Students for Campus Carry would disagree) idea won't ever be as "valued". The very definition of hypocrisy, no?
jns131
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 10:04 a.m.
OK, so let me get this straight, UM owns the sidewalks, the streets, the electricity that flows into and onto its property? O and lets not forget water and O yes, the art fair as well. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. You can ban him from the buildings but legally? You cannot ban him from walking the sidewalk nor banning him from walking down the street. Get real UM, you are not the state and federal government and you are not living in communist era Russia. Sorry, but this guy can pretty much do what he wants bar none from walking into one of your buildings. Otherwise, everyone will be trespassing on UM property because from what I was told? The sidewalk is public property and the street? Owned by Ann Arbor, money gotten from State and Federal grants, not UM. So, unless they want to maintain State Street, University and other streets that surround them? Uh, no, sorry UM, you can't tell him what to do and when. He has every legal right to walk and drive down State street. What a ridiculous thing UM is doing. Sorry, but I would challenge this one. Good luck UM up holding this stupid edict. Because they get state and federal grant money and as long as they do? They can't tell no one what to do and when.
Kafkaland
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.
@Ricebrnr: Somewone thinking twice about what they say because someone else might carry a bigger gun is precisely NOT what you want on an academic campus, where we value ideas, even unpolular ones. And I'd leave determining the line between an unpopular idea and threatening or disruptive behavior that ought to be stopped up to trained dispassionate individuals, like the Campus Police, instead of the passion of someone who is offendeed and just happens to carry a gun.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.
I don't understand, so far as I understand it this is one person stalking another person. The victim is in the process of getting a PPO shouldn't that fix the problem? How is this a concern of the U of M then? Why are they getting involved if this is the case? Also on a large scale, it seems to me that if the U cares not for the Second amendment it surely makes sense they'd care not for the First either. Seems to me if the victim could have the Second the AAG could keep his First and would be more circumspect in confronting the victim. Just a thought.
dogpaddle
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 9 a.m.
IMO, the issue here isn't Shirvell's right to free speech. No one is taking that away from him any more than we can tell the KKK not to hold a rally on the steps of City Hall. He has gone far beyond saying offensive things which is protected by our cherished First Amendment. He is STALKING Chris. What part of this is still a question? If a woman was being followed to her home and some creep was photographing her at 1:30 in the morning, wouldn't his sorry butt end up in jail?
Tom Brandt
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:58 a.m.
@SomewhatConcerned clearly didn't read the article. According to the story, most of the trespass warnings are to persons charged with a crime.
Kafkaland
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:46 a.m.
@GoBeatOSU: I disagree with the notion that just because UM is a public institution of the state of Michigan, any resident of Michigan has an automatic right to be on its property. If I take your argument to its logic conclusion, any US citizen could show up and demand access to any federal installation. Just try this at any army base, and I'm sure they'll disabuse you of your udnerstanding of your rights very quickly. In other words, being on state or federally owned property is a privilege, and not a constitutional right. Therefore, the due process rules for depriving you of your rights do not apply to trespassing cases like this. Now, whether the current trespass policy strikes a sensible balance to protect the campus community and the University as an open place for intellectual exchange and pursuit of learning - which I'm sure is furthered by the presence of panhandlers on the Diag - is a different matter.
Watcher
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.
A good fifth grade exercise would be a contest to find the most instances of misuse of the English language in the paper. In this article we find a new use of the word "trespass." Apparently, you trespass a person by giving a trespass warning.
Somewhat Concerned
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.
What a joke. No trespass warnings for people who are known burglars, muggers and drug dealers. Vandals and thieves can't be banned from campus, we are told, because it is public property. Is there a place in all of Michigan that is more hypocritical than UM? Is there a place that is more ridiculous? UM has managed to what one would have thought was impossible: match the ridiculousness of the assistant attorney general.
Brad
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.
I couldn't care less about the specific case of the AAG, but I get a little tired of the U's "shadow government" that is allowed to operate outside of the normal government. I don't see a lot of "due process" that isn't mediated by any non-U people in the trespass process. No doubt more of their "greater good" in action.
antikvetch
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:25 a.m.
I hope the city council passes a resolution supporting this trespass warning.