Background
Doug Arthur Wolshlager entered the Lincoln Township Hall seeking a Freedom of Information Act form. Witnesses testified that he yelled, used vulgar language, refused requests to move away from the payment counter or leave the property, threatened employees and their families, and poked the building official with a pen. Several employees became uncomfortable and called police.
After officers arrived, Officer Wesley Springer-Grounds told Wolshlager that township employees wanted him removed and that he had to leave. Wolshlager refused, pulled his arm away when Springer-Grounds grasped it, and was arrested. A jury convicted him of disturbing the peace and resisting or obstructing Springer-Grounds but acquitted him of resisting or obstructing the second officer. Wolshlager, who had waived counsel and represented himself at trial, challenged the evidence and argued that the trial court failed to refer him properly for indigency screening after he expressed interest in public-defender assistance to obtain an expert witness.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that sufficient evidence supported the disturbing-the-peace conviction because a rational jury could find that Wolshlager intentionally disrupted the township hall’s previously quiet environment and interfered with employees’ duties through his yelling, vulgar insults, threats, physical contact, and refusal to cooperate.
The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the resisting-or-obstructing conviction. Springer-Grounds’s statement that Wolshlager “gotta go,” made after explaining that township employees wanted him removed, constituted a lawful command rather than a mere request. Wolshlager knowingly failed to comply, expressly said he was not leaving, and remained for more than 30 seconds before the officer touched him. Because that failure independently supported the conviction, the court did not decide whether the subsequent warrantless arrest was lawful.
Finally, the court held that the trial court complied with MCR 6.005(B). The judge identified the chief public defender by name, directed Wolshlager to contact that office, and explained that the office would screen him and determine whether he qualified for representation. Wolshlager said he would make inquiries but later continued to insist on representing himself.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s aggressive yelling, threats, physical contact, and disruption of public employees’ work can support a disturbing-the-peace conviction beyond the mere expression of an opinion.
- Knowingly refusing an officer’s lawful command to leave property may constitute obstruction under MCL 750.81d(1), even without resolving whether a later arrest was lawful.
- A court complies with MCR 6.005(B) when it directs a defendant to the designated appointing authority and explains the indigency-screening process.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the line between protected expression and conduct that intentionally disrupts operations in a public building. It also confirms that an officer’s directive may be a lawful command based on its language and context, even when the officer also uses polite phrasing.
For self-represented defendants, the opinion shows that a trial court’s referral obligation does not require the court itself to appoint counsel when a separate appointing authority conducts indigency screening. A specific direction to that authority, coupled with an explanation of the process, may satisfy the rule.