Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The void for vagueness doctrine derives from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. That is, vague laws unconstitutionally deprive people of their rights without due process. The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v.
Case history; Prior: 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981): Holding; The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification.
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]
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court expanded and established key constructs of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process doctrine along with establishing the vagueness doctrine.
Under the Chicago Municipal Code § 8-4-015 (added June 17, 1992), loitering was a crime. The facts of the case were: Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibit[ed] "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places.
Pages in category "Void for vagueness case law" The following 32 pages are in this category, out of 32 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. *
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.
In U.S. constitutional law, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge , which alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.