Opinion ID: 146453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' As-Applied Challenge For Lack of Sufficient Limits on Discretion of Officers Who Enforce the Statute.

Text: Even if a person of ordinary intelligence has notice of what a statute prohibits, the statute nonetheless may be unconstitutionally vague if it authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). To survive a vagueness challenge, a statute must `provide[] explicit standards for those who apply it.' Farrell, 449 F.3d at 492 (quoting Nadi, 996 F.2d at 550); see also Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (requiring that statutes contain minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement (internal quotation marks omitted)). But a law need not achieve `meticulous specificity,' which would come at the cost of `flexibility and reasonable breadth.' Betancourt v. Bloomberg, 448 F.3d 547, 552 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Grayned, 408 U.S. at 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294). Moreover, a statute that provides what may be unconstitutionally broad discretion if subjected to a facial challenge may still be upheld as constitutional on an as-applied challenge if the particular enforcement at issue [is] consistent with the `core concerns' underlying the [statute] such that the enforcement did not `represent an abuse of the discretion afforded' under the statute. Farrell, 449 F.3d at 493 (quoting Perez v. Hoblock, 368 F.3d 166, 177 (2d Cir.2004)). Courts therefore look to see if the statute's meaning has a clear core. Id. (citing Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573, 577-78, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974)). We thus are presented with two questions: (1) Whether the statute as a general matter provides sufficiently clear standards to eliminate the risk of arbitrary enforcement, and, if not, (2) whether, even in the absence of such standards, the conduct at issue falls within the core of the statute's prohibition. Farrell, 449 F.3d at 494. The plaintiffs extensively briefed the first question, but barely addressed the second. The plaintiffs argue persuasively that section 14-107 provides no objective, verifiable standard by which a police officer is to determine if the object is prohibited by the statute. Appellants' Br. at 22. The law itself criminalizes possession of articles in any way resembling those worn by police officers. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-107. As we have discussed, this cannot mean what it says. See section II(D)(1), supra. Inasmuch as there are no standards provided by the statute to determine which objects in some way resembl[e] shields worn by members of the police force so as to be covered by the statute, the plaintiffs' argument that the standards are insufficient seems compelling. [17] But even if the plaintiffs are successful in demonstrating a lack of sufficient standards governing enforcement, they must also establish that the prohibition of their badges does not fall within the core concerns underlying section 14-107. This they have not done. One of the plain purposes of the statute is to prohibit persons from bringing into secure facilities unauthorized badges that may later be used to impersonate a police officer and gain further unimpeded access to restricted areas. It was this initial prohibited act that the plaintiffs were arrested for engaging in here. The defendants submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment substantial uncontested evidence that replica or bogus police shields, gold badges made to look like NYPD shields, and other phony police paraphernalia, have been used to commit crimes. They also offered unrebutted testimony that such materials may be used to gain unauthorized access to federal facilities. Mahoney Decl. at ¶ 5. [18] Such misuse strikes us as a core concern not only of the Operation Stinking Badges policy, but also of section 14-107, which by its terms is designed to stop any person not a member of the police force [from] represent[ing] himself or herself falsely as being such a member. [19] Because the enforcement at issue is consistent with the core concerns underlying section 14-107, we conclude that the plaintiffs' as-applied vagueness challenge for lack of adequate standards for enforcement fails.