Opinion ID: 1122990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: RCW 46.61.502 is void for vagueness

Text: Due process requires that citizens have fair warning of what activity is criminally prohibited so they may plan their activity accordingly and freely enjoy those activities which are not expressly illegal. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 350, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 1700-01, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it fails to define the criminal activity with sufficient definiteness to apprise common citizens of what is a crime. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Myrick v. Board of Pierce County Comm'rs, 102 Wash.2d 698, 707-08, 687 P.2d 1152 (1984) (statute requiring massage therapists to be fully clothed was void for vagueness because it failed to give fair warning of what manner of dress will run afoul of the law). Under the majority interpretation of RCW 46.61.502, the statute is unconstitutionally vague because the average citizen cannot know what activity is illegal. Is it illegal to drive with a .00 BAC even if one's BAC may rise to a .10 two hours after driving? The same driver tested at roadside would be acquitted, whereas if he were tested later, he might be convicted. If he were never tested, the issue would be: was he, in fact, under the influence when driving? Subsections 1(c) and (d). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an identical statute creates significant confusion as to exactly what level of alcohol in the blood is prohibited and does not provide the constitutionally required reasonable standard by which an ordinary person may contemplate their future conduct. Barud, 681 A.2d at 166. Our statute is no better.