Legal Opinion
People v. Douglas
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided December 29, 2011No. Docket No. 301233PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhitbeck, J.
The prosecution charged defendant Todd Alan Douglas, Sr., with copying audio or video recordings for gain. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that a provision of 1994 PA 210,1 the statute under which he was charged, was unconstitutional because the statutory term “prominent place” was vague. The prosecution appeals.
The statute provides that “[a] person shall not.. . [s]ell, rent, distribute, transport, or possess for the *132purpose of selling, renting, distributing, or transporting, or any combination thereof, a recording with knowledge that the recording”2 does not “contain in a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Lovell v. City of GriffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. GratschMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
- People of Michigan v. Aaron James MillerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2019
- People of Michigan v. Anthony ParlovecchioMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- People of Michigan v. Anthony ParlovecchioMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- People of Michigan v. Joel Raymond KalmbachMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.