2 Key Police Rulings Issued

LANSING - Two landmark guidelines have been set up by the Michigan Supreme Court for citizen and policeman alike in the areas of campus unrest and pólice search and seizure power. Each in its way strengthens the right of property. Thrust of .the decisions announced Monday is this: Students or anyone else cannot trespass or "sit in" illegally to express their right to free speech; pólice may not search on speculation and use weapons or drugs so found in evidence during trial. The latter decisión strikes a section from Michigan's constitution as being federally unconstitutional, as well as freeing a motorist from a conviction on a charge of carrying a dangerous weapon (loaded revolver) in his car. The power to arrest students or other demonstrators on campus and convict them for trespass was hailed by Solicitor General Robert Derengoski as "putting the brakes on disorder." He also said after study of the controlling opinión by Justice John R. Dethmers that he believes the precedent stands for "every school in Michigan- a kindergarten as well as a college or university." Ingham Prosecutor Raymond L. Scodeller termed the decisión a "landmark in maintaining peace and order in schools. "It's a most welcome precedeni for law enforcement officers," he declared. Four Michigan State University students were arrested and charged with trespass under state law and university ordinance after a "Career Carnival" Nov. 12, 1965. Prosecution witnesses said they stationed themselves in front of a Marine Corps recruiting booth, obstructing access to it and to booths of two private employers alongside, while displaying anti-Vietnam war placards. The students were convicted in Lansing Township justice court and fined $72.50 including costs. They appealed and on conviction in Ingham circuit court, Judge Marvin R. Salmón sentenced two to 30 days in jail and the other" two xo ïu days. They appealed to the State Court of Appeals which reversed Salmon and the prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court. All seven justices signing the decisión affirmed the original conviction and the stiffer penalties imposed by Judge Salmón as well. The opinión by Justice Dethmers cited other court precedent that, "The state, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." The students based their defense on the constitutional right to free speech. There was no violence, but university officials testified they read the ordinance against trespass to the four students three times before asking for their arrest. Since 1965, Derengoski noted, there have been many demonstrations, some recent sit-ins and on Feb. 19 this year, destructive rioting in and near the MSU campus. "The thrust of the Supreme Court decisión should mean less disorder and disruption on campus, and more convictions when it does happen," Derengoski commented. In the other decisión- where some pólice may think they "lost" and some private citizens may believe they "won," the Supreme Court controlling opinión, also written by Dethmers, specifically struck from the state constitution this section: "The provisions of this section (against "unreasonable search and seizure") shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceedings any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state." When the 1963 state constitution was written Atty. Gen. Frank J. Kelley advised the delegates against this exception to the right against search without warrant or probably cause, and predicted it would someday be found federally unconstitutional. He cited a 1961 case known as "Mapp vs. Ohio" in which the federal supreme court under the 14th amendment set limits on what could be used as evi- ■ dence aitërpoïïcêsêarcn turned up unexpected things. The current Michigan case stemmed from arrest of a Detroit área motorist by State Pólice after a citizen reported "A car weaving from side to side down Telegraph Road." An officer arrested the driver, placed his auto at a nearby service station, took the car keys himself, drove the motorist to a state pólice post in his cruiser and rogated the man. After booking the man on a charge of drunken driving, the officer returned t the auto and searched it without the driver's consent or a warrant. He found in the glove compartment a partly-filled whisky bottle and a loaded revolver. The trial judge ruled the search and seizure unlawful and éxluded the whisky bottle from evidence, but because of the portion of section 11, Article 1, of the state constitution, the judge allowed the gun and tfullets in evidence, and the man was found guilty o f carrying a dangerous weapon in a motor vehicle. The case was appealed through the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the express reason this would get the case to the state Supreme Court for a decisión on federal constitutionality. Justice Dethmers said in his opinión, "We are satisfied with the trial court's finding that the search and seizure were unlawful." Then he noted an argument used during the constitional convention: "It is said that what a majority of the electorate of Michigan, voting at elections in 1936, 1952 and again in 1963, have incorporated into the Constitution governing a rule of evidence in criminal proceedings in the courts of this state ought not to be susceptible of being stricken down by five men on the Potomac, never elected to their office nor directly responsible to the people." (This refers to the federal Supreme Court, where a majority of five prevails.) But Justice Dethmers noted that the courts of a state are bound by the decisions of the federal supreme court and said it would be wrong for a state court to avoid its duty to decide the question involved, by waiting for a federal Supreme Court ruling on the state's constitution. He said, "It avails little, then, to postpone decisión in this court until the U.S. court first has come to grips, as it has twice declined to do, with the Michigan constitutional prbvision here involved. It is nó hard to read the wntingonthêwaïïl He also ordered the case of the motorist back for new 1 al"inaccordance with" I unconstitutionality of the revolver being used in I dence. Derengoski and Schodeller noted that in recent years many police offícers have exercised much care in their searches, because of the 1961 federal court precedent. They pointed out many pólice in drug investigations late evidence enough to establish "reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed" bef ore arrest and search. But the decisión by the state court might prompt appeals of criminal I tion where the person convicted believes evidence used was gotten unconstitutionaüy