Opinion ID: 1592072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the ordinance is vague

Text: ABC Books argues that the ordinance is impermissibly vague in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The portion of the ordinance of which ABC Books complains is found in § 5.12.175(b) of the code, which provides in part: No person shall maintain any picture arcade unless the entire interior of such premises wherein the pictures are viewed is visible upon entrance to such premises. No partially or fully enclosed booths or partially or fully concealed booths shall be maintained. When a legislative enactment is challenged on vagueness grounds, the issue is whether the two requirements of procedural due process are met: (1) adequate notice to citizens and (2) adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). See, also, Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); State v. Fellman, 236 Neb. 850, 464 N.W.2d 181 (1991); State v. Monastero, 228 Neb. 818, 424 N.W.2d 837 (1988). In other words, due process requires that an enactment supply (1) a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and (2) explicit standards for those who apply [it]. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra at 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. at 2299. The criteria employed in evaluating language for vagueness embrace `flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity' or mathematical certainty. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra at 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. at 2300. Here, although the ordinance might have been drafted with greater precision, there is nothing vague about the prohibition against fully enclosed booths like those maintained by ABC Books. We find the ordinance meets both due process requirements. The ordinance provides adequate notice to persons of ordinary intelligence regarding the conduct prohibited and provides adequate standards to law enforcement officials. See, Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926).