Court Opinion

ID: 9530991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:06:08.792061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.797605
License: Public Domain

*244LANGrTRY, J.,
specially concurring.
• I concur in the result of the court’s opinion because the reasoning in City of Portland v. James, 251 Or 8, 444 P2d 554 (1968), and other similar cases compels it. The ordinance here rejected appears, in all three of its elements mentioned in the court’s opinion rather than just its third element, to have been fashioned upon Model Penal Code § 250.6 (Final Proposed Draft No. 1—1961). See Seattle v. Drew, 70 Wash2d 405, 423 P2d 522, 527, 25 ALR3d 827 (1967). The drafters of the Model Penal Code had no more success in overcoming vagueness standards formulated in shifting case law than have previous earnest drafters of laws seeking to give the police a tool that may be used in an effort to prevent crime before it happens.