Opinion ID: 1880248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonable Distance

Text: The association contends that the ordinance is vague because it requires that smokers must maintain a reasonable distance from the outside entrance of any building and thus requires enforcement to be based on a subjective determination of compliance. However, the mandate of reasonable distance is modified by the objective goal of keeping the interior of the building free from tobacco smoke. The ordinance requires that the smoke not enter the building through the entrances, windows, ventilation systems or other means. As long as an ordinance or statute can be reasonably understood by those affected by the ordinance and they can reasonably understand what the statute requires of them, it is not unconstitutionally vague. See Gurnee v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Ky.App., 6 S.W.3d 852 (1999). Vagueness involves a man on the street approach. The challenged statute must provide fair warning to the public and explicit standards for those who apply it in order to pass constitutional muster. Hardin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 573 S.W.2d 657 (1978). Surely, individuals can reasonably understand that if their tobacco smoke is entering the building they are not at a reasonable or required distance.