Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GLENN DOUGLAS MILLER, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-06-23
Citations: 121 Or. App. 428
Docket Number: B924280; CA A76680
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GLENN DOUGLAS MILLER, Appellant.
Judges: Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 121
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 3,
motion to strike state’s brief denied; otherwise affirmed June 23,
reconsideration denied August 18,
petition for review denied October 26, 1993 (318 Or 26)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GLENN DOUGLAS MILLER, Appellant.
(B924280; CA A76680)
854 P2d 1007
Sam I. Hochberg, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Ann F. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant's motion to strike the state's brief is denied. On the merits, defendant raises a constitutional vagueness challenge directed at the traffic infraction of "failure to wear approved headgear." ORS814.269; ORS815.050. Assuming, without deciding, that such a challenge is appropriate in a case not involving penal sanctions, we conclude that the laws cited by defendant are not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant's concerns are best addressed to the legislature.
Motion to strike state's brief denied; otherwise affirmed.