Opinion ID: 2508648
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the emergency exception

Text: The ordinance provides an exception to prosecution if the minor was involved in an emergency. [27] The plaintiffs claim that this exception is vague because the ordinance defines an emergency as an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action, [28] which it further specifies as including, but not limited to, a fire, natural disaster, automobile accident, or any situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or loss of life. [29] The plaintiffs argue that while the first statement could lead one to believe that forgetting a book at the library constitutes an emergency, the second implies that the situation must be dire. Such a contradiction, they claim, makes the exception vague. Anchorage correctly notes that similar emergency exceptions have been upheld in other jurisdictions. In Hutchins v. District of Columbia, [30] the court found a similar argument to border on the frivolous. [31] In fact, it is most likely because the term emergency might connote so many different possibilities that the word is further defined to provide specific examples of what could constitute an emergency under the statute. Because the emergency exception adequately provides notice of what could constitute an emergency under the ordinance, it is not impermissibly vague.