Opinion ID: 2585418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: constitutionality of the stalking statute

Text: Whitesell argues that K.S.A. 21-3438 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816, 830, 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); State v. Bryan, 259 Kan. 143, 145, 910 P.2d 212 (1996); State v. Adams, 254 Kan. 436, 438-39, 866 P.2d 1017 (1994). In Adams, we discussed our review of statutes and stated: `The constitutionality of a statute is presumed. All doubts must be resolved in favor of its validity, and before the act may be stricken down it must clearly appear that the statute violates the constitution. In determining constitutionality, it is the court's duty to uphold a statute under attack rather than defeat it. If there is any reasonable way to construe the statute as constitutionally valid, that should be done. A statute should not be stricken down unless the infringement of the superior law is clear beyond reasonable doubt.' 254 Kan. at 438-39. Prior to trial, Whitesell filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that K.S.A. 21-3438 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face and as applied to him. The trial court denied the motion. After trial, Whitesell filed a motion for arrest of judgment, again raising the vagueness and overbreadth issues. The trial court denied the motion. K.S.A. 21-3438 sets forth in pertinent part: (a) Stalking is an intentional, malicious and repeated following or harassment of another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety. .... (d) For the purposes of this section: (1) `Course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose and which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of `course of conduct.' (2) `Harassment' means a knowing and intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. (3) `Credible threat' means a verbal or written threat or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal or written statements and conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for such person's safety. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.
Whitesell admits that this court recently rejected the vagueness argument in Rucker and does not offer anything of substance in the way of new argument on the subject Arguments which are raised but not briefed will not be considered on appeal. State v. Pratt, 255 Kan. 767, Syl. ś 4, 876 P.2d 1390 (1994); McKissick v. Frye, 255 Kan. 566, 578, 876 P.2d 1371 (1994); State v. Trudell, 243 Kan. 29, 38-39, 755 P.2d 511 (1988); Supreme Court Rule 6.02(e) (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 33). Nothing has changed since our holding in Rucker. In Rucker, the appellant challenged the stalking statute on vagueness grounds, arguing that repeated, course of conduct, series of acts, credible threat, and legitimate purpose were unconstitutionally vague. After evaluating case law from other jurisdictions, we held that the language in K.S.A. 21-3438 was not unconstitutionally vague, stating: It appears to us that all the amendments made in the 1995 stalking law followed our recommendation in Bryan. The majority of jurisdictions with statutes which include these terms have upheld the constitutionality of their statutes and reject vagueness claims. The terms `repeatedly,' `apparent authority,' and `legitimate purpose' when read in conjunction with the rest of the statutory language do not require that a person of common intelligence guess as to their meanings. The terms are defined in relation to an objective standard, the statute contains a credible threat element, and it excludes constitutionally protected conduct. We reject Rucker's claim of vagueness and hold K.S.A. 21-3438 to be constitutional. 267 Kan. at 837. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6.09(b) (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 39), Whitesell submitted additional authority concerning the vagueness issue after the briefs were filed. Whitesell points to Staley v. Jones, 108 F. Supp.2d 777 (W.D. Mich. 2000), in support of his vagueness argument. Staley provides nothing in the way of support for Whitesell's argument that the Kansas stalking statute is unconstitutionally vague. Whitesell references footnote 4 in which the Staley court states that the statute provides absolutely no guidance as to what constitutes a `legitimate purpose.' Therefore, the public and the police are left solely to their own speculative powers to determine the meaning of this clause. There are several problems with Whitesell's argument on this point. First, footnote 4 is merely dicta, as the district court is clearly speculating on what it might decide, had the Michigan Court of Appeals not already decided the issue in People v. White, 212 Mich. App. 298, 536 N.W.2d 876 (1995). The dicta in Staley is frustrating in that the judge admitted that it is not the law but merely what he would decide if there was no controlling precedent. The federal judge noted as much, stating: If the White interpretation of the statute were not binding on the Court, it would agree that these portions of the statute violate the Due Process Clause.... As such, without the White interpretation, the Court would agree with Staley that the statute fails to meet the basic requirements of the Due Process Clause. 108 F. Supp.2d at 786, fn. 4. Second, the opinion in Staley is not binding upon this court. Third, this court already determined that the language as currently contained in K.S.A. 21-3438 is not unconstitutionally vague, and without any new substantive argument by Whitesell on this issue, the holding in Rucker stands.
In State ex rel. Murray v. Palragren, 231 Kan. 524,533, 646 P.2d 1091 (1982), this court discussed overbroad statutes, stating: While a vague statute leaves persons of common intelligence to guess at its meaning, an overbroad statute makes conduct punishable which under some circumstances is constitutionally protected. [Citations omitted.] Obviously, almost every law is potentially applicable to constitutionally protected acts. A successful overbreadth challenge can thus be made only when 1) the protected activity is a significant part of the law's target, and 2) there exists no satisfactory method of severing that law's constitutional from its unconstitutional applications. [Citation omitted.] An overbreadth challenge will be successful if the challenged statute trenches upon a substantial amount of First Amendment protected conduct in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. Staley, 108 F. Supp.2d at 786 (referring to Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612-15, 37 L. Ed.2d 830, 93 S. Ct. 2908 [1973]). Although the court in Staley held that the stalking statute was unconstitutionally overbroad, the opinion is not binding on this court. Furthermore, the reasoning and analysis is questionable at best. After reviewing a significant number of cases on the subject, the Staley decision appears to stand in isolation. A criminal statute should not infringe upon the First Amendment in an unconstitutional manner. The First Amendment, however, is not an impenetrable shield which protects any speech or conduct, whatsoever, with disregard to its harm and effect. Despite our First Amendment rights, we are not free to harm others under the guise of free speech. As speech strays further from the values of persuasion, dialogue and free exchange of ideas, and moves toward willful threats to perform illegal acts, the State has greater latitude to regulate expression. People v. Borrelli, 77 Cal. App. 4th 703, 715, 91 Cal. Rptr.2d 851 (2000) (referring to Shackelford v. Shirley, 948 F.2d 935, 938 [5th Cir. 1991]). Application of the overbreadth doctrine ... is, manifestly, strong medicine. It has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort. Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613. Concerning stalking laws, there must be a balance that is struck between our constitutional right to free speech and our personal right to be left alone. In Borrelli, the California appellate court discussed the legislature's ability to criminalize some types of speech and conduct, stating: `Many crimes can consist solely of spoken words, such as soliciting a bribe [citation omitted], ... or making a terrorist threat [citation omitted].... [T]he state may penalize threats, even those consisting of pure speech, provided the relevant statute singles out for punishment threats falling outside the scope of First Amendment protection. [Citations omitted.] In this context, the goal of the First Amendment is to protect expression that engages in some fashion in public dialogue, that is `communication in which the participants seek to persuade, or are persuaded; communication which is about changing or maintaining beliefs, or taking or refusing to take action on the basis of one's beliefs.` [Citations omitted.]... A statute that is otherwise valid, and is not aimed at protected expression, does not conflict with the First Amendment simply because the statute can be violated by the use of spoken words or other expressive activity.' 77 Cal. App. 4th at 714 (quoting from Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 628, 82 L. Ed.2d 462, 104 S. Ct. 3244 [1984], and Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 121, 134, 87 Cal. Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d 846 [1999]). In Champagne v. Gintick, 871 F. Supp. 1527 (D. Conn. 1994), the court discussed the legislature's ability to criminalize specific types of speech and conduct, stating: Yet this chilling effect raises no constitutional problems because it is well-settled that no one can use constitutional rights to invade the rights of others. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, expressive activity may be prohibited if it `involves substantial disorder or invasions of the rights of others.' Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that `violence or other types of potentially expressive activities that produce special harms distinct from their communicative impact ... are entitled to no constitutional protection.' 871 F. Supp. at 1534 (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Sch. Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 513, 21 L. Ed.2d 731, 89 S. Ct. 733 [1969], and Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 628, 82 L. Ed.2d 462, 104 S. Ct. 3244 [1984]). The Kansas stalking statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad on its face, as the type of speech and conduct which it prohibits is not the kind protected by the First Amendment. The legislature amended the statute after Bryan by specifically noting that [c]onstitutionally protected activity is not included with the meaning of `course of conduct.' K.S.A. 21-3438(d)(1); see Rucker, 267 Kan. at 830. Furthermore, the stalking statute serves a legitimate governmental purpose. As the court in State v. Ruesch, 214 Wis. 2d 548, 559, 571 N.W.2d 898 (1997), discussed: [The stalking statute] serves significant and substantial state interests by providing law enforcement officials with a means of intervention in potentially dangerous situations before actual violence occurs, and it enables citizens to protect themselves from recurring intimidation, fear-provoking conduct and physical violence. We also concur with the reasoning and conclusion of the Virginia Court of Appeals in Parker v. Com., 24 Va. App. 681, 691, 485 S.E.2d 150 (1997), when it discussed the legitimate purpose of the Virginia stalking statute, stating: The statute's purpose is legitimate: to protect innocent citizens from intentional or knowingly threatening conduct that subjects them to a reasonable fear of physical harm. Furthermore, the statute is tailored so that it does not substantially infringe upon speech protected by the First Amendment. It regulates the manner in which individuals interrelate with one another and prohibits individuals from communicating with others in a way that is intended or known to cause fear of physical harm.... [T]he statute permits all communications between individuals that are conducted in a time, place and manner that do not intentionally or knowingly cause the receiver of the message reasonably to fear for his or her physical safety. The statute's legitimate sweep does not portend any substantial burden on constitutionally protected conduct, and we find no realistic danger that the statute will compromise the First Amendment rights of parties not before the Court. The overwhelming majority of courts which have addressed this issue have held that stalking statutes which closely resemble the one in Kansas are not unconstitutionally overbroad. See Culbreath v. State, 667 So.2d 156, 162 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (following the majority of courts and holding that the Alabama stalking statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad); Borrelli, 77 Cal. App. 4th at 719 (holding that the stalking statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad as it did not inhibit a substantial amount of protected speech); People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225, 1231-32 (Colo. 1999) (en banc) (noting that true threats are not protected by the First Amendment and that the Colorado stalking statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad as it did not burden a substantial amount of protected speech); State v. Marsala, 44 Conn. App. 84, 96-97, 688 A.2d 336 (1997) (holding that the Connecticut stalking statute was not overbroad as it does not implicate any first amendment rights); United States v. Smith, 685 A.2d 380, 387-88 (D.C. App. 1996) (noting that the stalking statute was limited in its application and holding that it was not unconstitutionally overbroad); Pallas v. State, 636 So.2d 1358, 1363 (Fla. Dist. App. 1994) (holding that defendant's First Amendment right to free speech was not impinged as the stalking statute only prohibited conduct which would cause substantial emotional distress to a reasonable person and that statute required a credible threat made with the intent to place the victim in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury); Johnson v. State, 264 Ga. 590, 592, 449 S.E.2d 94 (1994) (holding that Georgia stalking statute was not overbroad); People v. Cortez, 286 Ill. App.3d 478, 481-82, 676 N.E.2d 195 (1996) (holding that the stalking statute only prohibited culpable conduct and that it was not unconstitutionally overbroad); State v. Martel, 273 Mont. 143, 153, 902 P.2d 14 (1995) (holding that appellant failed to show how stalking statute would substantially limit the First Amendment right to free speech); State v. Cardell, 318 N.J. Super. 175, 184-85, 723 A.2d 111 (1999) (holding that there is no constitutional right to threaten people in a manner contemplated by the stalking statute and that the statute was not overbroad); State v. Smith, 126 Ohio. App.3d 193, 210, 709 N.E.2d 1245 (1998) (holding that stalking statute was not overbroad as it did not criminalize a substantial amount of constitutionally protected activity and that it validly sought to criminalize behavior which invades another person's privacy interests); State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294, 307, 977 P.2d 379 (1999) (holding that stalking statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad even though it did not contain express exemption for constitutionally protected activity as it was otherwise narrowly tailored); Clements v. State, 19 S.W.3d 442, 451 (Tx. Crim. App. 2000) (holding that stalking statute was not overbroad as placing victim in fear of bodily injury was not constitutionally protected activity); Parker, 24 Va. App. at 691 (holding that the stalking statute was not overbroad); Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259, 1262-65 (Utah App. 1997) (holding that stalking statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad); State v. Lee, 135 Wash.2d 369, 391-92, 957 P.2d 741 (1998) (recognizing strong interest in right of privacy and holding that stalking statute was not overbroad as it did not infringe upon substantial amount of constitutionally protected behavior); Brock v. State, 981 P.2d 465, 470 (Wyo. 1999) (holding that stalking statute was not overbroad as it did not bring within its ambit activities that constitute an exercise of protected expressive or associational rights). Whitesell offers nothing in the way of argument on the issue of whether K.S.A. 21-3438 is unconstitutionally overbroad in its application to him. As such, we decline to address this argument. See Ruesch, 214 Wis.2d at 560 (refusing to address overbreadth argument where appellant failed to show how it was unconstitutional as applied to him).