Opinion ID: 2638563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Void for Vagueness Doctrine

Text: ¶ 12 Where, as here, a statute implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, a court will uphold a facial vagueness challenge only if the [statute] is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). A statute that is clear as applied to a particular complainant cannot be considered impermissibly vague in all of its applications and thus will necessarily survive a facial vagueness challenge. See id. at 495, 102 S.Ct. 1186 (A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.). ¶ 13 In order to establish that the complained-of provisions are impermissibly vague, a defendant must demonstrate either (1) that the statutes do not provide the kind of notice that enables ordinary people to understand what conduct [is prohibited], or (2) that the statutes encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. State v. Honie, 2002 UT 4, ¶ 31, 57 P.3d 977 (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)). Defendant has failed to establish that the statutes violate either test.