Legal Document

461 U.S. 352 103 S.Ct. 1855 75 L.Ed.2d 903 William KOLENDER, et al., Petitioner,v.Edward LAWSON. No. 81-1320. Argued Nov. 8, 1982. Decided May 2, 1983. Syllabus A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification account for their presence when requested by peace officer. The Court of Appeal has construed require person such police officer reasonable suspicion criminal activity sufficient justify stop under standards Terry v. Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889. court defined as "carrying assurance that is authentic providing means later getting in touch with identified himself." Appellee, had been arrested convicted statute, brought an action Federal District challenging statute's constitutionality. held unconstitutional enjoined its enforcement, Appeals affirmed. Held: drafted state court, unconstitutionally vague face within meaning Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment failing clarify what contemplated requirement suspect identification. As such, vests virtually complete discretion hands determine whether satisfied must be permitted go his way absence probable cause arrest. Pp. 355-361. 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981), affirmed remanded. A. Wells Petersen, San Diego, Cal., appellants. Mark D. Rosenbaum, Los Angeles, amicus curiae support judgment below special leave Court. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion 1 This appeal presents facial challenge circumstances would 889 (1968).1 We conclude it clause Accordingly, we affirm below. 2 * Appellee Edward Lawson was detained approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 January 1977 pursuant Cal.Penal Code § 647(e).2 prosecuted only twice, once. second charge dismissed. 3 then civil Southern seeking declaratory 647(e) unconstitutional, mandatory injunction restrain enforcement compensatory punitive damages against various officers him. found overbroad because "a stopped less than cannot punished identify Juris. Statement, at A-78. but could not recover involved acted good faith belief each detention arrest lawful. 4 Appellant H.A. Porazzo, Deputy Chief Commander Highway Patrol, appealed decision Ninth Circuit. cross-appealed, arguing he entitled jury trial issue officers. determination unconstitutionality 647(e). appellate determined violates Fourth Amendment's proscription unreasonable searches seizures, contains standard susceptible arbitrary fails give fair adequate notice type conduct prohibited. Finally, reversed holding them, remanded case trial. 5 this from portion which declared enforcement. noted jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1254(2). 455 999, 102 1629, 71 865 (1982). II 6 In courts below, mounted attack validity 647(e).3 "In evaluating law, federal must, course, consider any limiting construction agency proffered." Village Hoffman Estates Flipside, Estates, 489, 494, 1186, 1191, 362 Appeal,4 individual detention.5 People Solomon, 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867 (1973). "Credible Id., 438, 867. addition, may required "account . extent assists producing credible reliable ." Ibid. Under terms failure permits arrest.6 III 7 Our Constitution designed maximize freedoms framework ordered liberty. Statutory limitations those are examined substantive authority content well definiteness certainty expression. See generally M. Bassiouni, Substantive Criminal Law 53 (1978). 8 stated, void-for-vagueness doctrine penal define offense ordinary people can understand prohibited manner does encourage discriminatory (1982); Smith Goguen, 415 566, 94 1242, 39 605 (1974); Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 92 2294, 222 (1972); Papachristou Jacksonville, 405 156, 839, 31 110 Connally General Construction Co., 269 385, 46 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Although focuses both actual citizens have recognized recently more important aspect vagueness "is notice, other principal element doctrine—the legislature establish minimal guidelines govern law enforcement." Smith, supra, 574, S.Ct., 1247-1248. Where guidelines, permit standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, juries pursue personal predilections." 575, 1248.7 9 Section 647(e), presently courts, no determining do order satisfy An individual, whom think suspicious believe committed crime, continue walk public "only whim officer" happens Shuttlesworth Birmingham, 382 87, 90, 86 211, 213, 176 (1965). concern here based upon "potential arbitrarily suppressing First liberties 91, 213. implicates consideration constitutional right freedom movement. Kent Dulles, 357 116, 78 1113, 1118, 1204 (1958); Aptheker Secretary State, 378 500, 505-506, 84 1659, 1663-1664, 12 992 (1964).8 10 simply "stop-and-identify" statute. Rather, carries "reasonable assurance" authenticity, provides "means also "to identification." 11 At oral argument, appellants confirmed unless "the [is] reliable." Tr. Oral Arg. 6. giving examples how suspects requirement, explained jogger, carrying identification, could, depending particular officer, answer series questions concerning route followed arrive place where him,9 reciting name address. id., 6-10. It clear full accorded provided necessarily "entrust[s] lawmaking 'to moment-to-moment policeman beat.' " U.S., 1248 (quoting Gregory Chicago, 394 111, 120, 89 946, 951, 22 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring)). "furnishes convenient tool 'harsh local prosecuting officials, groups deemed merit displeasure,' Papachristou, 170, 847-848 Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 97-98, 60 736, 741-742, 1093 (1940)), "confers unrestrained power violation." Lewis New Orleans, 130, 135, 970, 973, 214 (1974) (POWELL, concurring). occur there level stop, State ensures existence "neutral officers." Brown Texas, 443 47, 51, 99 2637, 2640, 61 (1979). initial justified, complied subsequent requirement. 13 Appellants stress need strengthened tools combat epidemic crime plagues our Nation. curbing certainly matter requiring attention all branches government. weighty is, however, legislation otherwise fail meet clarity. Lanzetta Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 83 888 (1939). construed, "suspicious" some undefined punishment. due process "impossible standards" clarity, see United States Petrillo, 332 7-8, 67 1538, 1541-1542, 91 1877 (1947), further precision statutory language either impossible impractical. IV 14 encourages describe particularity statute.10 affirmed, proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. 16 BRENNAN, concurring. 17 I join Court's opinion; demonstrates convincingly case, interpreted vague. Even if defect were cured, hold Amendment.1 Merely facilitate general objectives investigating preventing unspecified crimes, authorize prosecution produce information demand 18 long settled prohibits seizure search individual's except certain conditions strictly legitimate requirements limited resulting intrusion liberty privacy. Davis Mississippi, 721, 726-727, 1394, 1397-1398, 676 (1969). scope exception seizures cases, beginning (1968), activity, articulable facts, detain briefly purposes questioning and, doing, brief "frisk" protect himself concealed weapons. See, e.g., Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 880-884, 95 2574, 2579-2580, 2581-2582, 45 607 (1975); Adams Williams, 407 143, 145-146, 1921, 1922-1923, 32 612 (1972). lacking, expressly declined allow significantly intrusive detentions rationale, despite assertion compelling interests. "For narrowly intrusions, requisite 'balancing' performed centuries precedent embodied principle 'reasonable' supported cause." Dunaway York, 442 200, 214, 2248, 2257, 824 (1979).2 19 cases following recognition officers' "intermediate" response, short arrest, circumstances; effect purpose powerful investigation prevention crimes. Any may, direct question another passing. far more: If they suspicion, use number devices substantial coercive impact attention, including official "show authority," physical force him, 19, n. 16, 1879, 16; Florida Royer, --- ----, 1319, 1324, (1983) (opinion WHITE, J.); Mendenhall, 446 544, 554, 100 1870, 1877, 64 497 (1979) Stewart, J.). During encounter, few will ever feel free cooperate fully answering questions. Cf. W. LaFave, Search Seizure 9.2, 53-55 reports replete suspects' cooperation during encounters, even great deal lose cooperating. Sibron 45, 1893-1894; 1326. price effectiveness, interests protected Amendment. intrusiveness these stops render them "seizures" 1877. For precisely reason, circumscribed, limit degree cause. encounters brief; moved asked move distance; necessary encounter; most importantly, after time decline put 21 "[T]he while pertinent directed Of obliged answer, answers compelled, refusal furnishes basis although alert continued observation." 34, 1886 (WHITE, Failure observe converts encounter into sort justified committed. 1325 1330 216, 2258. 23 arrest—or prolong until responded satisfaction undoubtedly elicit high percentage very individuals sufficiently coerced show authority, detention, frisk. never claimed expansion act alone, less, 52, 2641, But balance struck interest effective equally safeguarding privacy governmental interference forbids expansion. supra; 878, 2578-2579. Detention beyond limits without improve effectiveness investigations small margin, expose members exponential increases risk abuse improper ends. Furthermore, regular detentions, connection specific underlying likely exacerbate ongoing tensions, exist, public. Report National Advisory Commission Civil Disorders 157-168 (1968). 24 sum, Amendment, about commit using necessary, asking investigative questions.3 They ask calculated obtain answer. compel reasonably period acquired given arrest.4 25 abridge rule making refuse protections Fifth Sixth Amendments once taken custody. To begin, intrusions rights advance specific, already analysis described above. Yet claim advances facilitation preservation order—factors addressed length Terry, Davis, Dunaway. Nor impose sanction, addition pose aegis pursuit State's additional individuals' rights. Compare Brief 18-19 (asserting "detecting crime" "protecting citizenry acts"), 436-437, 867, 872 (1973) (§ involved," i.e., "protection society crime"), 884, 2581-2582 (federal immigration control border itself suspicion), Byers, 402 424, 456-458, 1535, 1552-1553, 29 (1971) (Harlan, concurring judgment) (state regulating automobiles justifies automobile accident report it). Thus, extend progeny control. 26 Second, goes saying threat sanction severe likelihood innocent accosted realistic compounds severity occasion. arrests authorizes make mockery enforced squarely suspicion.5 remains force, open fact, prosecutions Such case-by-case scrutiny vindicate like appellee, many arrested, ante, 354. pedestrian approached knowing suspicion"—without 356, 5—because condition depends solely objective facts known evaluated light experience, 30, 1884; 884-885, 2581-2582. know assert subject him it: new acquaintances among jailers, lawyers, prisoners, bail-bondsmen, first-hand knowledge jail conditions, "search incident arrest," expense defending possible prosecution.6 response expected compliance requests, regard possibility vindication court. Mere subjecting dilemma.7 27 By defining respond requests permitting commission attempts compelled Constitution. vague, prohibit REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. usual alleged judged charged violative Mazurie, 419 550, 710, 714, 42 706 Powell, 423 92-93, 96 316, 319-320, 228 (1975). actor conviction vulnerable grounds, applied conduct, None "suggests one received warning criminality own nonetheless similar respect might broad literal ambit. One whose clearly applies successfully vagueness." Parker Levy, 417 733, 756, 2547, 2561-2562, 41 439 (1974). correlative "impermissibly applications." 497, 1193, 30 These rules applicable "fundamental" involved. "more drafting regulation expression," 2561; "greater specificity" demanded contexts. 573, 1247, difference "relates strict test shall judging statute." 2562. challenger confuse overbreadth attacking enactment being own. ibid. actions themselves provision, fairly warn proscribed, convicted. unavailing knew unprotected plainly enough forbidden others doubt acts banned law. upshot therefore, purports regulate constitutionally should applications. fool category reach unmistakable core case. true, though provision illegality. reaches amount Amendment; indicated, agree demanding. imply, majority does, 358-359, invalidation defendant's confound overbreadth, contrary supra. says "rests lack notice." Ante, 358-359. range personnel, putative arrestees, authorized There nothing discretionary arrests. breaker barred seems me untenable exercise judicial review invalidate circumstance misapply That guidance arresting dealt situations. 504, 1196. fashioning brand "overbreadth" invalidating face, thus forbidding application identifiable state's sanction. 34 made least sense identification" valid 495, 1191.* ground; majority, me, demonstrate is. Suppose, example, answers: "Who am just none your business." Surely constitute violation. absurd suggest situation unfettered legally serve violation occurred. 35 "It self-evident whole anyone semblance common [a identification] covered instances ample room undue variety [to failed requirements] unpredictability situations change others." 36 584, 1253, judgment). 590, 1255 (BLACKMUN, J. THE CHIEF JUSTICE agreeing WHITE issue). cryptically asserts, interests, however applied. therefore appellee remitted 37 finds "contains 'credible reliable' information." 358. same time, concedes mean person. narrowing likened "standardless" statutes cited majority. (1972), "vagrant." provided: 38 "Rogues vagabonds, dissolute begging, gamblers, drunkards, night walkers, lewd, wanton lascivious persons, railers brawlers, wandering strolling around lawful object, habitual loafers, vagrants." 840, 1. 132, 972, (1974), "for wantonly curse revile obscene opprobrious toward reference member city performance duty." present fall category. 40 Orleans threatened infringements freedoms. stricter warranted. Here, makes potential suppression liberties, precise nature mentioned. (1965), cited, ordinance "stand street sidewalk having on," concerns implicated adequately Lovell Griffin, 303 444, 58 666, 82 949 (1938), Schneider 308 147, 146, 155 (1939), distribute leaflets sidewalks. Amendment—and express views question—the striking down. apparently bring take course. resorts instead applications somehow distasteful applied, serves open-ended oversee states' legislative choices criminal-law area leaves quandary draft pass muster. reverse Appeals. provides: "Every commits guilty disorderly misdemeanor: (e) Who loiters wanders apparent reason business refuses so, surrounding indicate man safety demands find However, transcript numerous descriptions testified walking vacant late night, isolated, located close area. 266-267. Another Lawson, hour businesses still open, burglaries unknown 207. states apart challenged propriety injunctive relief Steffel Thompson, 452, 1209, 505 Lawson's standing seek relief. note occurred two years. threat" again Ellis Dyson, 421 426, 434, 1691, 1696, 44 Wainwright Stone, 414 21, 22-23, 190, 192, 179 (1973), "[f]or too indefinite 'we read highest it.' Minnesota ex rel. Pearson Probate Court, 309 270, 273 [60 523, 525, 744] (1940)." Circuit intermediate supreme refused review, Solomon nine circumstances, authoritative 1362, 1364-1365 (1981). lead appropriate. according "be able point which, together rational inferences warrant intrusion." 1880. articulated differed actually held, "[w]e meant incorporate enunciated Terry." 1366, 8. interpretation Solomon. misread implicated. appeared frisk proper since request Terry. Cal.App.3d, 435, Cal.Rptr., observed "slightly askew." F.2d, 9. reasoned frisk, opposed detaining believes armed dangerous, afoot. Caylor, 56, 85 (1970), suggested prove loitering "evil purposes." parties concede "authoritative" Supreme issue, discussion roots back Reese, 221, 563 (1875): dangerous set net large catch offenders, step inside say rightfully detained, large. would, extent, substitute department government." dissent, claims "[t]he Post, 370. description holdings inaccurate several respects. First, neglects fact conduct." imposes penalties, higher. Winters 333 507, 515, 68 665, 670, 840 (1948). has, times, led us conceivably application. Colautti Franklin, 379, 394-401, 675, 685-688, 596 (1979); dissent 371. dissent's view, "confuse own." Id. traditionally viewed logically related doctrines. Keyishian Board Regents, 385 589, 609, 87 687, 629 (1967); NAACP Button, 371 415, 433, 328, 338, (1963). Note, Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine 109 Pa.L.Rev. 67, 110-113 (1960). No supports argument challenges context. relies heavily deliberately stringent "[b]ecause factors differentiating military civilian society." relied position. reaffirming speech association affected, 498-499, 1193-1194, emphasized "simply regulates behavior" "economic often narrow." 499, 498, 1193 (footnote omitted). criminalizes suspect's officers, "settled voluntarily unsolved crimes answer." 727, 6, 1397, Because ground, unnecessary decide raised resolution issues necessity doing so. Burton States, 196 283, 295, 243, 245, 49 482 (1905); Liverpool, N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. Commissioners Emigration, 113 33, 39, 352, 355, 899 (1885). Ashwander Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 288, 346-347, 56 466, 482-483, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, remaining include concerns, expectation identity lawfully protection testimony, inclusion part creates problems. argues Michigan DeFillippo, 31, 36, 2627, 2631, 343 recent years invalid directly government "authorize trenches rights, regardless labels attaches 40, 61, 1889, 1902, 917 Sibron, arose context motion defendant suppress evidence obtained result property. always violated purporting offended repeatedly shown subjected future force. Angeles Lyons, 1660, 1669, (1983); Gomez Layton, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 764 safeguards are. usually practical accomplish longer necessity, indications intrusive. 212-216, 2256-2258, (seizure custodial interrogation station Amendment), 727-728, (suspect summarily fingerprinting appear time), Summers, 452 692, 701-705, 101 2587, 2593-2595, 69 340 (1981) home premises cause). 1325, 225 J.) ("least means" Police material witnesses crime. Model Pre-Arraignment Procedure 110.2(1)(b) (Proposed Official Draft 1975). reactions properly violence furnish grounds Other reactions, flight, information, possess, conceivable mere gave rise first place, confronted claim, evaluate carefully penalized 53, 3, 3. forced will, and—in contrast appears normal procedure encounters—he informed. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 1602, 694 (1966). indicates desire remain silent, cease altogether. 473-474, 1627-1628. When shifts significantly, tolerate restrictions invasions possibly redressed, charges dismissed acquitted. resist. cause, represents significant sanctioned want avoid end detention. underplay conflict today last term suggesting "less test" economic regulations issue. ordinances characterized quasi-criminal respondent's ordinance, "relatively laws. 499-500, 1193-1194.

Classification Label: 3