Opinion ID: 848788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: without specific facts, a jail and a locked residence hall may both have restricted entry

Text: Today, the majority proposes a two-part test for determining whether a government building is open for use by members of the public under § 6. First, there must not be restricted entry to the building of those persons who are qualified on the basis of some individualized, limiting criteria of the government's creation. Ante at 169. Second the building must be open for public use at the time of entry. The test is derived from the statute and arguably provides a workable framework for deciding when a building is open under § 6. However, absent more facts, one cannot discern how the majority's factintensive inquiry concludes that a jail is not subject to restricted entry, while this locked residence hall is. Initially, I would note that the majority's focus seems to have shifted from the type of building (a nonspecific jail in Brown ) to the exact building at issue (Betsy Barbour Residence Hall, locked twenty-four hours a day). Brown implied that all jails would be open for purposes of § 6, without regard to the unique aspects of each. Today, the majority focuses on the specific aspects of this locked residence hall. Presumably, it should not be compared to one of the large residence halls at Michigan State University that are open for classes and other events during the day. However, the distinction between the generic analysis in Brown and the specific analysis here leads to confusion, as the majority does not disavow Brown at all. The bench and bar would benefit from an explanation of the proper focus for the § 6 inquiry. [3] Next, without some comparison of the two buildings, I cannot conclude that the jail in Brown has less restricted entry than the residence hall in this case. Unless the jail has an open, walk-in lobby that members of the public can enter, which is possible, I see no meaningful distinction between the levels of restriction on entry. It seems unlikely that a member of the public could enter the interior of the jail, or this residence hall, unless he had business inside; neither building would appear to permit one to stroll at will inside the facility. [4] Again, I emphasize that there may be aspects of the jail in Brown that provide for less restricted entry than the residence hall in this case. The difficulty is that the majority does not specify what those aspects are. The reader is left wondering, as the Court of Appeals obviously was, whether a nondescript jail is subject to fewer restrictions than this residence hall.