STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5855

February 26, 1981

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:

Board of control--authority to promulgate rules limiting canvassing in residence halls

The Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University may adopt reasonable regulations as to the time, place and manner of door-to-door canvassing in university residence halls in order to protect the privacy of students residing therein.

The Honorable Gary M. Owen

State Representative

State Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have inquired as to the authority of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, consistent with constitutional guarantees of free speech, to regulate door-to-door canvassing in university residence halls.

The law is settled in Michigan that the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University has the authority to erect residence halls and to make regulations governing their operation as student residences. Const 1963, art 8, Sec. 6; 1963 PA 48 (2nd Ex Sess); MCLA 390.551 et seq; MSA 15.1120(1) et seq; Poynter v Drevdahl, 359 F Supp 1137, 1142 (WD Mich, 1972).

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Const 1963, art 1, Sec. 5 protect freedom of speech from governmental intrusion.

A state or a local unit of government may adopt reasonable measures designed to protect individual privacy regulating the time, place and manner of speech that are applicable to all speech, regardless of content. See Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville, 422 US 205, 209; 95 S Ct 2268, 2272-2273; 45 L Ed 2d 125, 130-131 (1975). It may act to restrict a mode of communication that intrudes into the privacy of the home or residential quarters. Linmark Associates, Inc v Wellingboro, 431 US 85, 94; 97 S Ct 1614, 1619; 52 L Ed 155, 162 (1977).

In Brush v The Pennsylvania State University, ---- Pa ----; 414 A2d 48 (1980), appellants, the class of canvassers and the class of residents, challenged Pennsylvania State University's regulation of residence hall canvassing which permitted canvassing in the main lobby and afforded canvassers the opportunity to telephone residents, mail them information and hold meetings in residence hall facilities. Appellants alleged an impermissible restriction of freedom of speech and assembly in that the residence hall canvassing regulation prohibited door-to-door canvassing in those residence halls where a majority of residents declined an 'open canvassing' option.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's findings that the residence hallways and bedroom doors were equivalent to the interior of a private home, rather than to a public street and the door of a private dwelling, ⁽¹⁾ and that the regulations provided reasonably effective alternative means for communication. Based upon those findings, the Court, after noting that the regulations were not based upon content, sustained the canvassing regulations as a permissible restriction on the place and manner of expression. Brush v The Pennsylvania State University, supra.

Further, such regulations may serve to protect the security of student residents both as to their person and property.

It is, therefore, my opinion that, consistent with the First Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, Sec. 5, the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University may adopt reasonable regulations designed to protect individual privacy governing the time, place and manner of door-to-door canvassing in university residence halls. ⁽²⁾

Frank J. Kelley