hankycode magazine is a print and digital publication dedicated to sharing queer stories.

If you missed part 1 or 2, read that here first before reading this third and final part.

Police and State Response to Cruising

65% of the 26 mass arrests are confirmed to involve undercover operations. It’s certainly likely that other mass arrests also utilized undercover operations that weren’t mentioned in the newspaper articles, as this was the primary form of cruising policing at the time. In 1991, a Detective Sgt. of the Bay City state police post said most rest stop surveillance cases aren’t based solely on video evidence. “We generally use a decoy,” he said. “We have someone go into those places, and if they are approached, then we can make an arrest” (Younkman, 1991). In multiple mass arrest cases, at least some of the charges came from men allegedly attempting to solicit a plainclothes undercover officer, a key way that men were caught.

While police often emphasized that undercover officers were the most suitable option in these situations, the lawyer who worked with over 100 accused men, had a different perspective. He argued that undercover police work appears to be designed “not to end the practice, but to intimidate people, to ruin their lives and to harass them.” He also added that, “it seems to me that if they (police) really wanted to stop it, they could do it with a lot less manpower. They could put one man in uniform there all the time…but their interest is to go out and entrap people and embarrass them, then turn it into a media event” (Gave, 1985). I agree with his perspective, especially noting the headlines splashed in newspapers sensationalizing both the charges and the number arrested. For example, in 1965, the Ann Arbor News headline read Accuse 30 of Morals Violations (Ann Arbor News, 1965). The use of the language ‘morals violations’ further emphasized the humiliation for the men arrested and is an example of the public’s casual homophobia at the time.

Furthermore, in some cases, it appears the policing method being used wasn’t working effectively. As previously mentioned, following a 1979 mass arrest at four Wayne County rest areas, a lieutenant noted that a similar sweep occurred every year in the late winter (Detroit Free Press, 1979). Given that the men kept returning to the rest areas, it appears that the yearly undercover operations weren’t resolving the issue, yet they kept using the same method for years.

As time progressed, the way the police and those involved in the cases discussed the accused changed. In 1966, a former Grand Rapids vice squad officer explained that, “The way we get these guys is to flood an area with young, good-looking fellows and then move in after the subject makes a pass.” They referred to this as ‘trolling,’ and the Circuit Court Judge had no issues with the tactic. He explained that when the arrested men appear in court, “I slap every one of them into prison. Of course it isn’t the best place for them, but these men will not be wandering our streets, encouraging youths who have had no record of homosexual activity into this type of behavior” (Alt, 1966). This viewpoint leaned heavily into the anti-homosexuality perspectives at the time, and the incorrect beliefs that some held that homosexuality equated to pedophilia. Additionally, it seemed to show an anti-gay bias on behalf of the judge, given that he said he sent “every one of them into prison,” regardless of charge.

The previous year, in 1965, 30 men were arrested at 2 rest stops off I-94 around Ypsilanti. A sheriff called the work “the most unpleasant police work possible” (Ann Arbor News, 1965). This further cements the homophobic attitudes some officers publicly held. The Sheriff likely dealt with severe cases, including offenses like murder, and, notably, he considered cruising arrests to be the “most unpleasant,” implying it was more unpleasant than serious offenses.

Again, in 1978, there was an alleged instance of brazenly homophobic officers following the mass arrest of 42 in Kalamazoo. The President of the Association of Gay Students, noted that some of the men arrested had said that police traced a derogatory four-letter word on a police vehicle to harass the suspects. Police who arrested the men said they had “no comment” regarding the allegations (Griffin, 1978).

Finally, in 1977, a lawyer explained to the Grand Rapids Press that a client had been arrested for a homosexual charge years prior. “I’ve had cases in court that I thought were insensitively handled, particularly by judges,” the lawyer says. “I pleaded one of these guys guilty, and the judge made him stand up and relate what actually happened. It was very embarrassing for my client” (Whitt, 1977).

Given these instances of publicly homophobic judicial professionals and law enforcement, it makes sense that if they held resentment or even just misunderstanding toward homosexuals, they could desire to create a spectacle of them or entrap them, as the lawyer claimed.

In 1982, there was a marked change in how those associated with one case discussed it publicly. Following a mass arrest in Kent County, a Detective Sgt. of the Kent County Sheriff’s Department vice unit said, “This is not a question of homosexuality…It is a case of blatant sex acts taking place in a public place.” He also added, “Probably if this weren’t a public place, we wouldn’t be wasting our time investigating this…All we want them to do is go somewhere else if they must, away from the public” (The Herald-Palladium, 1982) Another instance of this change happened in 1984, following the mass arrest of 31 in Wayne County a lieutenant said, “It’s [cruising] not a top priority…we’d rather spend our time dealing with crimes against people, like rapes and robberies.” (Christoff, 1984).

Whether perspectives regarding homosexuality were changing, or whether officers realized what they said to reporters impacted their reputation and thus refrained from sharing homophobic beliefs, is anybody’s guess. Regardless, it’s a marked shift worth paying attention to.

In addition to policing, the state also responded to the continued homosexual cruising at rest stops. In 1983, measures were introduced to reduce homosexuality and prostitution. However, they were withdrawn by the state Transportation Department after realizing the policies lacked sufficient support to gain approval. That said, the panel’s co-chairman said the ban on spending more than 20 minutes in the facilities’ restrooms would be discussed again (Muskegon Chronicle, 1983). In 1986, a toll-free telephone number was established so that motorists could report problems around the clock. A supervisor of roadside maintenance in the state Transportation Department, also noted that the department was considering electronic surveillance equipment at some rest stops as well as increasing the hours that state workers staff the facilities, and even closing some stops overnight and improving the training of rest area personnel (The Grand Rapids Press, 1986).

Public response

The public response to these mass arrests, as documented in historic newspaper records, can be broken into two categories–the heterosexual response and the homosexual response.

Two mental health professionals, wrote in to the Lansing State Journal to express their support of homosexuals. They wrote, “We are extremely disturbed by the recent arrests of men at rest stops in the Lansing area. We are not homosexuals, and we do not condone public sexual acts. However, we are concerned about human rights, about the manner in which this situation was handled, and about the profound impact of these arrests on the lives of the men involved. Because of long-standing discrimination and intolerance of homosexuals, few ‘acceptable’ meeting places exist.” They also added, “We are deeply concerned about the effects of these arrests and the undue publicity associated with them on the men involved. Many of these men will encounter humiliation and discrimination from employers, families, coworkers, and, as has already happened, from the media and community at large. The emotional impact of this experience will be devastating for some, difficult for all” (Weiss & House, 1985).

Not all of the populace was as understanding as these two mental health professionals. In 1990 an arrest occurred at Island Park in Adrian, and while it wasn’t at a rest stop, one woman’s response suggests how some residents felt about the broader homosexual arrests during this time. “What they’re doing is not the way things are supposed to be, because that’s not the way God intended them to be,” the woman said. “I’d lock them up for life. I’m heartless” (Bruni, 1990).

A former Kinsey researcher, also weighed in, especially focused on the danger regarding AIDS associated with the mass arrests. He said, “Given AIDS, it’s an awful, awful prospect of what could happen. But, for the men, it’s one place where there is total anonymity. Nobody knows anybody. It’s quick, it’s over in a very short time, and they go on their way” (Kinkopf, 1986).

These varied opinions are a great subset of the varied opinions in Michigan regarding homosexuality during this time. Some individuals were much more open-minded, while others held tight to religious or political convictions.

The local gay communities also had varying opinions regarding the arrests. In Kalamazoo, following the arrest of 42 in 1979, the Association of Gay Students held a benefit to help pay the legal fees of the 42 who were arrested. The organization was most concerned about the police tactics and privacy related to the arrests. “The stall is really a private space, even though the rest area is public. We’re not saying that laws weren’t broken, we’re questioning the method of obtaining evidence, the severity of the charges, and the suppression order,” explained the president of the group (Griffin, 1978).

At a picnic for Gay and Lesbian Pride in Byron Township, some members of the community shared their thoughts following the 1983 Kent County mass arrests. “There’s always going to be perverts - straight or gay. Until these people can come out, they’ll be in the shadows doing something murky,” one man who attended the picnic, said. He and others at the picnic wanted people to know that not all gay people could be lumped with those who were arrested. “They’re craving for recognition, release, and probably some physical affection,” he said. “They need help.”

Limitations

This three part series has several limitations to consider. Since it relies primarily on newspaper records, that means there isn’t always a uniform way the papers referred to the charges; some listed the charges, while others remained more vague, referring to ‘morals charges.’ Uncovering official legal documentation can be challenging, especially when some newspapers reported instances when the prosecutor agreed to drop charges or expunge men’s records, as long as they followed the steps laid out for them—often probation, therapy, and avoiding rest stops.

Similarly, some articles don’t specifically include details on the police operation; these investigations likely involved undercover officers, given that that was the most common type of cruising policing at the time. However, if the article didn’t explicitly state that, I didn’t include it in the evidence.

This series is centered on newspaper analysis and what we can glean about policing, the arrested, and society at this time. That fact also means that newspapers can hold biases, and that the scope of the study is limited to newspapers that have been digitized, though a considerable number have been digitized, not all have been. It’s certainly likely there were other mass arrests publicized at the time that I’ve been unable to recover records of. It’s also almost certain that other mass arrests never made the newspaper. In fact, in Washtenaw County, after a mass arrest in 1989, an officer noted that the total was 130 or 140 arrests over nine months (Ann Arbor News, 1989). Only a fraction of those arrests were publicized. However, for the scope of this study, I’m more focused on mass arrests that were publicized and garnered public reactions.

Conclusion

The history of Michigan’s mass same-sex cruising arrests reveals far more than a simple series of police investigations conducted at highway rest stops. Instead, these arrests highlight how geography, religious culture, family expectations, and police surveillance intersected to shape the lives of closeted gay men in Michigan in the mid to late twentieth century. For many men, highway rest stops were not just locations for anonymous sexual encounters but also accessible spaces that accommodated the realities of work-related travel, rural isolation, and the need to hide their sexual identities within communities where disclosure could carry extreme consequences.

The evidence presented in this series demonstrates that mass arrests were not isolated events. Instead, they became part of a broader system of policing in which undercover operations, public identification in newspapers, and, in some cases, openly homophobic rhetoric could extend the consequences of arrest beyond the courtroom. Newspaper coverage further reveals a public discourse that ranged from condemnation to sympathy, reflecting the varied opinions regarding homosexuality within Michigan society during this period.

By analyzing these arrests within their broader social and geographic context, this series contributes to the ever-growing body of scholarship exploring LGBTQ+ history beyond major coastal cities. This study is a reminder that gay cruising history can’t be understood solely through a coastal urban lens. History must also account for rural and suburban histories where secrecy and surveillance were key facets of queer individuals’ lives.

References:

Younkman, T. (1991, June 6). Rest stops under eye of cameras. The Bay City Times, p. 11.

Accuse 30 of morals violations. (1965, August 26). Ann Arbor News, p. 3.

43 are seized in raids at four rest stops. (1979, February 28). Detroit Free Press, p. 8A.

Alt, R. (1966, December 19). Should we jail the deviate? Grand Rapids Press, p. 21.

Griffin, L. (1978, November 18). Rest stop arrests raise questions about rights. Kalamazoo Gazette, p. A3.

Whitt, A. (1977, December 6). Lawmen disrupt homosexuals’ trysts at u.s. 131 rest stop. Grand Rapids Press, pp. 1B-2B.

Christoff, C. (1984, October 20). Rest stop arrest of 2 principals causes stir. Detroit Free Press, p. 3.

Anti-gay rest stop proposals withdrawn. (1983, November 2). Muskegon Chronicle, p. 14.

State rest- stop problems are being studied. (1986, March 25). Grand Rapids Press, p. B4.

Weiss, J., & House, S. (1985, October 6). Offers of support. Lansing State Journal, p. 15a.

Bruni, F. (1990, August 10). Adrian debates homosexuality, criminal cases. Detroit Free Press, pp. 1a–6a.

Kinkopf, E. (1986, March 28). Why do men take the risk? Detroit Free Press, pp. 1b–2b.

Troopers arrest 15 at rest stops. (1989, May 20). Ann Arbor News, p. 2.