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."
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.
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 ...
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. *
Jacksonville's ordinance at the time of the defendants' arrests and conviction was the following: [2] Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling ...
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.
The law's effects are thereby far broader than intended or than the U.S. Constitution permits, and hence the law is overbroad. The "strong medicine" of overbreadth invalidation need not and generally should not be administered when the statute under attack is unconstitutional as applied to the challenger before the court.