Opinion ID: 2633305
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The right to explain provided in CCO 12.08.030 is inconsequential

Text: For two reasons, the right to explain one's actions provided in CCO 12.08.030 is inconsequential. First, any explanation could not be properly evaluated against the ordinance's inadequate guidelines. [25] The absence of any standards by which to evaluate such an explanation renders the right to explain inconsequential. Second, the enforcing authorities could simply disregard the explanation. Under CCO 12.08.030, only the opportunity to explain is required; once afforded, the person may be arrested regardless of his or her explanation. The enforcing authorities are not required to give the explanation any weight. [26] Thus, the right to explain one's actions provided in CCO 12.08.030 fails as an effective safeguard against the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the ordinance. Consequently, the ordinance fails to provide adequate guidelines to officers, which renders it unconstitutionally vague under the second prong of the vagueness doctrine. Because we determine that CCO 12.08.030(1) fails to provide notice sufficient to enable persons of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct was prohibited and (2) lacks specific standards, thus risking arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, we conclude that Clark County's prostitution loitering ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.