Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion. The "void for vagueness" legal doctrine does not apply to private law (that is, laws that govern rights and obligations as between private parties), only to laws that govern rights and obligations vis-a-vis the government. [citation ...
"'[A] law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits,'" noted Justice Stevens, "[i]f the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty."
In the common law system, vagueness is a possible legal defence against by-laws and other regulations. The legal principle is that delegated power cannot be used more broadly than the delegator intended. Therefore, a regulation may not be so vague as to regulate areas beyond what the law allows.
Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1971), was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants."
The courts have generally determined that laws which are too vague for the average citizen to understand deprive citizens of their rights to due process. If an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed by a law, courts may find that law to be void for vagueness. See Coates v.
"Because the definition of 'analogue' as applied here provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, it is void for vagueness." [3] The common law principle that the people should have the right to know what the law is, means that the wording of laws should be sufficiently clear and precise that it is ...
The vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally "void for vagueness" for two reasons. [14] First, it failed to provide fair notice to individuals about what conduct was forbidden by the law. [14] Second, it encouraged arbitrary arrests and convictions. [14]
Solomon (1973), 33 Cal. App.3d 429, had construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity. [ 3 ] William Kolender was an appellant who was acting in his capacity as Chief of Police of San Diego , as was John Duffy who was acting in his capacity as Sheriff of San Diego ...