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.
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 ...
He declared that individuals are unconstitutionally deprived of due process when they are convicted under "a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes." [2] The Court had raised the specter of unconstitutional vagueness in two prior cases regarding the residual clause—James v.
An example of criminal due process rights is the case Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980). ... courts may find that law to be void for vagueness.
The rule of lenity is one such canon. Implicit in its provisions is the additional burden placed on the prosecution in a criminal case and the protection of individual rights against the powers of the state. It also furthers the fundamental principle of requiring notice in criminal law. Individuals should not be punished for their acts when the ...
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.
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 ...
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.