Court Opinion

ID: 9742772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:20:03.626941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:36.485411
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J.,
dissenting.
I join Chief Justice Krivosha in his dissent that the questioned ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, but make additional comment about the ordinance’s vagueness. What is sought to be prohibited by the ordinance is “inconvenience, annoyance or alarm,” or creating the risk of causing such situations or conditions. To paraphrase the basic prohibition of the ordinance, it is unlawful to make trouble for somebody, to irritate someone, to frighten anybody, or to bring about the possibility or danger of causing trouble, irritation, or fright to anyone. Such nebulous and subjective situations cannot constitutionally be the basis for prosecution. The various subparts of the ordinance are only a futile facade for vagueness.