Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/078wn2d/078wn2d0909.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:01:37+00:00

Document:
Statutes - Validity - Constitutional Interpretation. A statute is presumed constitutional and will not be declared otherwise unless its repugnance to the constitution clearly appears or is made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt. If the statute is reasonably capable of a constitutional construction, it will be given that construction; however, if its coverage extends into the area of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, it will be scrutinized with great care to be certain that fundamental freedoms are not impermissibly curtailed.
 Schools and School Districts - Control of Premises - Vagrancy Stattute - Purpose. RCW 9.87.010 (13), which declares persons who loiter on school grounds and who have no lawful purpose there to be vagrants, was enacted under the police power and is designed to provide a means to control unauthorized activities by unauthorized persons on school premises. It is aimed at maintaining a scholastic atmosphere, protecting school property and students from persons who might perversely utilize school premises for purposes detrimental to or unconnected with the basic educational processes to which the properties are dedicated.
 Schools and School Districts - Control of Premises - Person - Unaffiliated With School. While public school properties are public in the sense they are endowed and operated with taxpayers' money, a member of the public may not, at any time he pleases, use such properties for his own personal objectives or the dissemination of his own personal views. The uses which can be made of school properties by members of the public, otherwise unaffiliated with school operation, are subject to reasonable statutory, as well as administrative, regulation and proscription.
 Criminal Law - Statutes - Certainty - Test. Invalidity of a penal statute because of vagueness rests in the constitutional due process principle of fair notice and proper standards for adjudication. Impossible standards of specificity are not required; however, a statute must convey a sufficiently definite warning as to proscribed conduct when measured by common practice and understanding. A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if there are well settled and ordinarily understood meanings for the words employed when viewed in the context of the entire statutory provision.
«*» Reported in 480 P.2d 766.
 See Ann. 25 A.L.R.3d 792; 55 Am. Jur., Vagrancy (1st ed. § 4).
loitering proscribed in type, place, persons, and tenor so as not to be unconstitutionally vague.
 Criminal Law - Elements of Crime - Willfulness. "Willful" as used in penal statutes is ordinarily understood to mean an act committed intentionally, deliberately, and/or designedly as distinguished from one done accidently, inadvertently, innocently and/or with lawful excuse.
 Criminal Law - Statutes - Overbreadth - Test. The concept that a penal statute can be unconstitutional because of overbreadth rests on principles of substantive due process. A statute is unconstitutional on these grounds when its language, given its normal meaning, is so broad in prohibiting a course of action that the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct, e.g., freedom of speech, depends on the unlimited discretion and subjective views of those charged with enforcement of the statute.
 Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech - Limitation on Right -Overbreadth. An otherwise valid statute making a course of conduct illegal is not unconstitutional on the grounds of overbreadth merely because the right of free speech may be intermingled with the condemned conduct. However, the court must weigh the purported impairment of speech against the importance of the societal interest protected by the statute, the nature and extent of the threat which the statutorily forbidden conduct poses to the interest, and alternatives available to the state in achieving its ends and those which were available to the person charged with the violation.
 Schools and School Districts - Control of Premises - Vagrancy Statute - Overbreadth. RCW 9.87.010 (13), which limits the rights of nonstudents on school grounds, is not unconstitutional as being so broad in scope as to encumber the right of free speech.
 Schools and School Districts - Control of Premises - Vagrancy Statute - Prior Restraint of Speech. RCW 9.87.010 (13), which operates to exclude from school grounds those persons without lawful purpose, together with an implementing school regulation requiring permission before a person could enter and distribute leaflets to students, did not amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on the right to free speech where applied to persons who had knowledge of the regulation but did not attempt compliance; such persons refused to leave on request and had to be arrested; and there was no discrimination in applying the statute and regulation on the basis of content of the speech.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 7689, Bert C. Kale, J., entered June 6, 1969. Affirmed.
Prosecution for vacancy. Defendants appeal from a conviction and sentence.
Michael H. Rosen, Christopher E. Young, and Jan E. Peterson, for appellants.
James P. Thompson and William A. Gardiner, for respondent.
Is a vagrant, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
On appeal to this court, defendants challenge the validity of the quoted portion of the statute, contending that it is inapplicable as to them and their alleged activities and that it is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.
The board of directors of the school district embracing Sehome High School in the city of Bellingham, promulgated and had in force at all times in question a regulation providing that any nonschool-related handouts or leaflets distributed to students on the school premises be first approved by the superintendent. This included, but was not limited to, notices and leaflets announcing youth programs, sponsored by such organizations as the YMCA, YWCA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.
was at that time advised of the school board's regulation and of the approval requIred thereunder.
Without further effort to comply with the regulation, the eight defendants, including Mr. Start, appeared on the school premises at 7:30 am., November 26, 1968, stationed themselves under a covered walkway adjacent to the school bus unloading area, and each commenced the distribution of pamphlets, entitled "Channeling" and "Uptight With the Draft," to the students as they left their busses preparatory to entering classes. Shortly after this activity started, the school principal appeared and advised defendants of the regulation concerning the distribution of materials on campus, their noncompliance therewith, and thrice asked them to leave. The defendants refused to desist and depart, whereupon the principal called the Bellingham Police Department.
A Police officer later arrived and informed defendants that, under the circumstances, their presence and actions constituted a violation of state law and that it would be necessary to arrest them if they did not leave the premises. The defendants responded to the officer's warning by stating that they considered the law to be unconstitutional, and that they refused to cease their activities short of arrest. The officer then arrested them and booked them at the city jail for the violation of law of which they were subsequently convicted. After booking, the defendants were released upon their personal recognizance pending trial.
The defendants were not students or employees of the Sehome High School nor were they parents or guardians of any students attending the schooL Approximately 150 students were present and observed the incidents leading up to the arrest of defendants. Except for some student boos and hisses expressing disapproval of the defendants, no violence occurred.
Prefatory to addressing our attention to the issues presented on this appeal, we deem it appropriate to make three general observations.
constitutionality and it will not be judicially declared unconstitutional unless its repugnancy to the constitution clearly appears or is made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt. Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wn.2d 425, 353 P.2d 941 (1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 932, 5 L. Ed. 2d 365, 81 S. Ct. 379 (1961). Furthermore, if the statute is reasonably capable of a constitutional construction it will be given that construction. State ex rel. Starkey v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 68 Wn.2d 318, 413 P.2d 352 (1966); Seattle v. Drew, 70 Wn.2d 405, 423 P.2d 522, 25 A.L.R.3d 827 (1967). Where, however, rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the United States Constitution may be involved in the reach of a questioned statute, courts must scrutinize the legislation with great care to be certain that fundamental freedoms are not impermissibly curtailed. Ashton o. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 16 L. Ed. 2d 469, 86 S. Ct. 1407 (1966).
preeminent duty and obligation of local and state government to amply provide, promote, and protect the inalienable right of each young generation to a sound, meaningful and proficient education taught in an appropriate environment, under compatible conditions, and subject to reasonable regulations. Newman v. Schlarb, 184 Wash. 147, 50 P.2d 36 (1935); State ex rel. DuPont-Fort Lewis School Dist. 7 v. Bruno, 62 Wn.2d 790, 384 P.2d 608 (1963).
[2, 3] Third, RCW 9.87.010 (13) is in the nature of a preventative measure enacted under the reserved police power of the state. Its apparent legislative design is to provide school administrators and law enforcement agencies with a means by which to exercise some degree of control over activities on or about school premises which are unrelated to legitimate school purposes and being carried on by unauthorized individuals not associated with the school's academic community. Undoubtedly, it is aimed at maintaining a scholastic atmosphere as well as protecting school properties and preserving the moral and physical safety and well-being of the student body from the intrusion and harassment of degenerates, dope peddlers, pornographers, vandals, troublemakers in general, and other persons who might perversely wish to indiscriminately utilize school premises for purposes detrimental to or unconnected with the basic educational processes to which the properties are dedicated. In this vein, it is essential to recognize the fact that while school properties are public in the sense that they are endowed and operated with taxpayers' money, they are not public in the sense that any member of the general public may, when and if he pleases, use such properties for his own personal objectives or the dissemination of his own personal views. Accordingly, the uses to which such properties may be put by members of the public, otherwise unaffiliated with the school operation, are properly subject to reasonable statutory, as well as administrative, regulation and proscription. People v. Johnson, 6 N.Y.2d 549, 190 N.Y.S.2d 694, 161 N.E.2d 9 (1959); People v. Sprowal, 49 Misc. 2d 806, 268 N.Y.S.2d 444, aff'd, 17 N.Y.2d 884, 271 N.Y.S.2d 310, 218 N.E.2d 343, appeal dismissed, 385 U.S.
649, 17 L. Ed. 2d 670, 87 S. Ct. 768 (1966); State v. Starr, 57 Ariz. 270, 113 P.2d 356 (1941).
With these observations in mind, we turn to the merits. Defendants, in essence, mount a 3-pronged attack upon RCW 9.87.010 (13). They contend that, first, it is unconstitutionally vague; second, it is unconstitutionally Overbroad; and, third, it was unconstitutionally applied to them and their conduct on the school premises involved. we cannot agree with defendants' challenges.
The concept of vagueness or indefiniteness rests on the constitutional principle that procedural due process requires fair notice and proper standards for adjudication.
entire statutory provision. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 91 L. Ed. 1877, 67 S. Ct. 1538 (1947); United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 98 L. Ed. 989, 74 S. Ct. 808 (1954).
Defendants, in their challenge, focus primarily upon two of the terms found in RCW 9.87.010 (13) and contend that by virtue of their indefiniteness the statute is impermissibly vague. These are the word "loiter" and the phrase "without a lawful purpose." These terms, however, must be considered in connection with the provision as a whole.
 After defining the word "loiter," in its commonly understood sense, to mean standing, idling, lingering or loafing about a given place, we `held in Seattle v. Drew, 70 Wn.2d 405, 423 P.2d 522, 25 A.L.R.3d 827 (1967), that the word standing alone, or otherwise unqualified by ascertainable standards, did not connote wrongdoing or imply a sinister motive. In so holding we struck down, as unconstitutionally vague, a city ordinance purporting to penalize a person for failing to give a satisfactory account of himself upon demand of a police officer when found loitering abroad at night. We noted, however, that the distinction between a valid and effective loitering ordinance or statute and an impermissibly vague one is language within the ordinance or statute which spells out, and enables an ordinary citizen to know, the dividing line between innocent loitering and unlawful loitering.
We are satisfied that, in the full context of RCW 9.87 .010 (13), the kind of loitering condemned as unlawful is fully qualified by ascertainable standards and is amply spelled out in terms readily understandable to the average person. The proscribed loitering is specifically limited as to type, place, persons, and tenor.
(1968). Thus, innocent loitering is not prohibited by the statute. Only willful loitering is condemned.
The place of the enjoined loitering is clearly confined to premises dedicated and devoted to educational purposes and the public premises immediately adjacent thereto. Loitering elsewhere is not barred by the statute.
The class of persons precluded from willfully loitering about the premises of educational institutions are those who are not (a) enrolled students, (b) parents or guardians of enrolled students, and (c) employees of the institution. The statute is unambiguous in this respect.
Finally, the tenor of the circumscribed loitering is that done "without a lawful purpose." This phrase, while not wholly free of ambiguity, fairly imports, in the context used, willful loitering which is not legitimately related to school purposes. It embraces those, within the prescribed class of persons, who would trespass and remain upon the designated premises without authorization and without valid school connected business, as well as those who would do so with criminal motives. The statute does not purport to impose restrictions upon any who enter school premises for school associated purposes. People v. Parker, 208 Misc. 978, 138 N.Y.S.2d 2 (1955); People v. Johnson, 6 N.Y.2d 549, 190 N.Y.S.2d 694, 161 N.E.2d 9 (1959); People v. Dennis, 208 N.Y.S.2d 522 (1960); People v. Sprowal, 49 Misc. 2d 806, 268 N.Y.S.2d 444, aff'd, 17 N.Y.2d 884, 271 N.Y.S.2d 310, 218 N.E.2d 343, appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 649, 17 L. Ed. 2d 670, 87 S. Ct. 768 (1966); State v. Starr, 57 Ariz. 270, 113 P.2d 356 (1941). Cf. People v. Bell, 306 N.Y. 110, 204 Misc. 71, 125 N.Y.S.2d 117, 115 N.E.2d 821 (1953); People v. Merolla, 9 N.Y.2d 62, 211 N.Y.S.2d 155, 172 N.E.2d 541 (1961).
These statutory standards and limitations, in our view, are sufficiently definite and specific to give any ordinary person of common intelligence wishing to avoid the interdiction of RCW 9.87.010 (13) reasonable notice of the prohibited conduct. The provision, therefore, squares with procedural due process and is not unconstitutionally vague.
within its prohibitions constitutionally protected freedoms, particularly freedom of speech guaranteed under the first amendment to the United States Constitution. This they assert renders it unconstitutional on its face.
The theme of impermissible statutory overbreadth finds expression in numerous United States Supreme Court decisions, some of which are Zwickler y. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 19 L. Ed. 2d 444, 88 S. Ct. 391 (1967); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 559, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471, 487, 85 S. Ct. 453, 466 (1965); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 9 L. Ed. 2d 697, 83 S. Ct. 680 (1963); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479,5 L. Ed. 2d 231, 81 S. Ct. 247 (1960); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940).
States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 20 L. Ed. 2d 182, 88 S. Ct. 1335 (1968); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149, 87 S. Ct. 242 (1966); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 93 L. Ed. 513, 69 S. Ct. 448 (1949).
In such situations, however, it is incumbent upon the court to weigh the purported impairment of speech engendered by the statutory provision against the importance of the societal interest sought to be vindicated by the statute, as well as the nature and extent of the threat which the statutorily forbidden conduct poses to that interest. And, too, the alternatives available to the state and the claimant must be evaluated, i.e., whether the state may achieve its ends in a less restrictive manner and/or the claimant effect his communication in a way less detrimental to the societal interest.
 Defendants' argument that RCW 9.87.010 (13) patently sweeps within its ambit the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, in our opinion, overlooks and deemphasizes the principal thrust of the statute.
constitutionally impermissible alternative that they be denied the untrammeled use of school premises for the dissemination of their personal views, when and in such fashion as they themselves may elect.
We conclude that the statute is not overly broad on its face.
By their third contention, defendants maintain that RCW 9.87.010 (13) was unconstitutionally applied to them because (a) they were exercising their right of free speech, and (b) the school board regulation, requiring approval of the school superintendent before leaflets could be distributed to students, constituted an impermissible prior restraint upon free speech. In support of this argument, defendants point to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969), wherein the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of junior and senior high school students to wear black arm bands to classes in protest of the Viet Nam conflict, despite countervailing school regulations.
We do not consider the holding of the Tinker case to be applicable to the instant circumstances. The Tinker case dealt with the constitutional rights of students. It did not concern itself with the rights or obligations of nonstudents or others unassociated with the school community.
 In the instant case, it is established by stipulation that the defendants knew of the school board regulation involved, made no realistic or good faith effort to comply with it, deliberately came upon the school premises and commenced distributing their leaflets in outright defiance of the rule, refused to leave when asked by the principal, and effected a confrontation with the police officer when he arrived, all in the presence of the students as they were about to enter their classrooms. Under these circumstances we believe the teaching of Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 17 L.Ed. 2d 149, 875. Ct. 242 (1966), applies.
There is no evidence before us in this case to the effect that school officials were discriminatory in administering the rule relating to the distribution of leaflets to students. Neither is there any evidence that the principal asked defendants to leave because he objected to the material they were distributing or disagreed with the views they sought to express. On the contrary, he asked them to leave the premises because, in willful defiance of the school rule, they were seeking to distribute their leaflets when, where, and how they saw fit on premises dedicated to a lawful purpose. They thereby became trespassers upon school property and willful loiterers within the provisions of RCW 9.87.010 (13).
In conclusion, we find no merit in defendants' argument that the school board regulation amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint upon their right of free speech. The regulation on its face is not an unconstitutional, unlawful or unreasonable one, and there is no showing whatsoever that it was administered unfairly, unequally or in a discriminatory fashion, e.g., that pro-war or selective service pamphleteering was permitted while anti-war and antidraft leaflets were banned.
FINLEY, ROSELLINI, HUNTER, HALE, McGOVERN and STAF-FORD, JJ., and HILL, J. Pro Tem., concur.

References: § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.