People v. Lino: Michigan Supreme Court Focuses on Constitutionality of Gross Indecency Law
The Michigan Supreme Court took up some important issues related to the Michigan Gross Indecency Law in the consolidated cases of People v. Lino and People v. Bashier.
Issues of the Case
There were four issues in these cases:
- Is the Michigan Gross Indecency Statute unconstitutionally vague?
- Whether the standard of common sense of the community should be the standard for gross indecency cases
- Whether oral sex in public is an act of gross indecency
- Whether the specific conduct on People v. Bashier constitutes gross indecency
People v. Lino
In People v. Lino, the defendant was charged with gross indecency after a police officer observed him giving oral sex to another man in a parked truck. The defendant was charged under MCL 750.338, gross indecency between males.
People v. Bashier
In the case of People v. Bashier, the defendant induced minors to perform certain acts to another man. The acts included physically and verbally abusing the other man. Bashier did not join in or touch anyone but simply watched the events. There was never any direct physical contact between the minors and either Bashier or the other man. The other man would pleasure himself while the minors were doing this. Both men were charged with procuring or attempting to procuring an act of gross indecency between males.
Issues in the Case
The Court declined to find the statute to be unconstitutionally vague. Challenges to laws based on unconstitutional vagueness are common at least one point in a statute’s history. The challenge against the gross indecency statute was important because the gross indecency statute does not actually define what gross indecency is.
Unconstitutional vagueness is where a law either fails to provide notice of the illegal activities, encourages discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement, or where the law is so broad it interferes with a First Amendment freedom.
The Court did not believe the gross indecency statute to be unconstitutionally vague. The Court looked to past cases which had held the conduct at issue in both Lino’s and Bashier’s case to be gross indecency. These cases would have provided notice their behavior was outlawed (in the Court’s opinion, though it’s obviously unlikely either defendant in the case could tell you what those cases said, but that’s how the law works).
These two cases the Court cited to answer the vagueness question also answered the question of whether the specific conduct in both Lino and Bashier’s cases could be gross indecency.
In general, a violation of gross indecency between adults must include a sexual act in public. Private sex acts between adults will not be gross indecency.
Where a minor is involved, however, the acts in private even without technical sex acts could be a violation of the law – there is no public place requirement when a minor is involved.
In Bashier’s case, such acts with minor’s can be grossly indecency even though there was no direct physical sexual contact. This is because the acts were performed for the other man to derive sexual pleasure from. In that sense the acts were still overtly sexual acts. Read more in the case of People v. Drake, which fully discusses this dynamic.
Takeaways from the Case
This case is cited in most other gross indecency cases, mainly to rebut any argument against the constitutionality of the statute. The case summary above is the majority opinion. However, the case goes on extensively in concurring opinions that expand upon the principles above, but are the beyond the scope of this article. The concurring opinions are important in there is a lot of language regarding the issues above.
Sam Bernstein is an Ann Arbor Lawyer focusing on Criminal Defense.
ArborYpsi Law is located at 4158 Washtenaw Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48108
- People v. Warren: It it Prostitution of it’s Just Hands?
- People v. Drake: Can it be Gross Indecency without Sex?
- People v. Brown: Gross Indecency Law Discussed by COA
- People v. Jones: Is It Gross Indecency if the Couple is Married?
Call 734-883-9584 for a Michigan Sex Crimes Attorney
ArborYpsi Law is ready to represent you on charges of sex crimes. These charges can have life-altering consequences, in ways a DUI case or a disorderly conduct ticket cannot. We understand this and will be with you and fighting for you every step of the way. Has a police officer or detective called to question you regarding a sex crime? Don’t say anything. Call an attorney. Don’t wait until you’ve gone to the first probable cause conference to speak with an experienced criminal lawyer. These cases start with a thorough investigation and a proactive defense that must begin with the minute you walk into our office.
Ann Arbor OWI Attorney
At ArborYpsi law we also represent people charged with driving under the influence, known legally as operating while intoxicated. A drunk driving charge is more common than ever now with specially trained officers, known as drug recognition experts, out patrolling the roads and looking for any excuse to pull someone over.
With the increasing use of prescription medications, any traffic violation coupled with a valium could land someone a serious charge of driving under the influence of drugs. We will do everything in our power to fight these charges for you. After a thorough analysis of the case, we will file motions, and prepare for trial.
Read Our DUI / OWI Articles for More Information
- Operating While Intoxicated by Fentanyl
- Using Dust-Off and Driving: DUI with Inhalants
- Roid Rage: Driving Under the Influence of Steroids
- Driving While Intoxicated by Stimulants: Can I Get a DUI from my Adderral?
This case is cited as People v. Lino and People v. Bashier, 447 Mich. 567 (1994), 527 N.S.2d 434