Also known as: void-for-vagueness doctrine · void for vagueness · vagueness doctrine · statutory clarity doctrine · due process vagueness
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional doctrine under the Due Process Clause that invalidates statutes failing to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct or explicit standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
Valentina Vasquez, a defense lawyer, told reporters that her client would present evidence of police misconduct at trial. The disciplinary board sanctioned her under a publicity rule that barred statements creating a substantial likelihood of prejudice while allowing statements about the general nature of the defense without elaboration. The board could not explain why her comment crossed the line, leaving Vasquez without clear notice of what speech was safe.
Virgil Volpe walked through a commercial district at night. An officer stopped him and demanded credible and reliable identification plus an account of his presence. Volpe could not satisfy the vague standard and faced misdemeanor charges. The statute supplied no objective criteria for what counted as credible identification.
Edward Lawson was detained or arrested on approximately fifteen occasions by San Diego police officers between March 1975 and January 1977 while walking on the streets of the city. On each occasion, officers stopped Lawson and requested that he produce a driver's license or other identification. When he was unable to comply, the officers arrested him under California Penal Code section 647(e). Lawson was prosecuted twice under the statute and convicted once. The second charge was dismissed. Lawson filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against various officers and officials, including Deputy Chief Commander H. A. Porazzo of the California Highway Patrol. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that section 647(e) was unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction restraining its enforcement, and compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court held the statute overbroad, enjoined its enforcement, and denied damages on the ground that the officers had acted in good faith. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that the statute was unconstitutional. It concluded that the statute violated the Fourth Amendment, contained a vague enforcement standard susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, and failed to give fair notice of the conduct prohibited. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the denial of a jury trial on the damages issue and remanded the case for trial. The officers appealed to the Supreme Court from the portion of the judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. California Penal Code section 647(e) (West 1970) provides that every person who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. The statute further requires that such a person refuse to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer if the surrounding circumstances indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification. California courts have construed the statute to require that a detained person provide credible and reliable identification. This identification must carry reasonable assurance that it is authentic and provide means for later contact with the person who has identified himself. The District Court made no specific findings concerning the circumstances of each stop, but the trial transcript contains descriptions given by both Lawson and the officers. One officer testified that he stopped Lawson on an otherwise vacant street late at night because the area was isolated and near a high-crime zone. Another testified that he detained Lawson while walking at a late hour in a business area where burglaries had occurred. Lawson stated that he had never been stopped by police for any reason apart from these detentions under the statute.
View caseVictor Vale was arrested under a municipal vagrancy ordinance that defined vagrants as persons wandering without lawful purpose. Officers applied the ordinance to Vale's presence near a bus stop without any observable criminal act. The ordinance supplied no objective criteria separating lawful presence from prohibited conduct.
Valerie Voss entered a store during posted business hours and remained after closing when employees failed to ask her to leave. She was later prosecuted under an ordinance that courts had expanded to cover remaining after hours even without notice. Voss had no way to anticipate that her conduct would be treated as criminal trespass.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseVincent Valdez visited his cousin in public housing and was barred under a rule allowing officers to issue no-trespass notices to nonresidents for any reason. Valdez received no advance notice of the criteria used to decide who could be excluded. The rule left enforcement to the unfettered discretion of individual officers.
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority owns and operates Whitcomb Court, a housing development for low-income residents in Richmond. Until June 23, 1997, the city of Richmond owned the streets within the development. The city council then enacted an ordinance closing Carmine Street, Bethel Street, Ambrose Street, Deforrest Street, the 2100-2300 Block of Sussex Street and the 2700-2800 Block of Magnolia Street to public use and conveyed them by deed to the Authority, requiring it to make the streets appear private. The Authority posted red-and-white signs every 100 feet stating that the streets were private property and that unauthorized persons would be subject to arrest and prosecution. It also enacted a trespass policy authorizing police to serve notice on nonresidents lacking a legitimate business or social purpose and to arrest them if they returned after notice. Respondent Kevin Hicks, who does not reside at Whitcomb Court, had been convicted twice of trespassing there and once of damaging property. While a property-damage charge was pending, the Authority gave Hicks written notice barring him from the property, which he signed in the presence of a police officer. Hicks twice asked the housing manager for permission to return but was denied both times. In January 1999, Hicks returned to Whitcomb Court and was arrested and convicted under Virginia Code Annotated section 18.2-119 for trespassing after having been forbidden to return. At trial, Hicks challenged the Authority's policy as unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia initially rejected his claims, but the en banc court reversed the conviction. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the en banc decision on the ground that the policy was unconstitutionally overbroad because it vested too much discretion in the housing manager, without deciding whether the streets constituted a traditional public forum. The Commonwealth of Virginia petitioned for certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted in 2003. Hicks had not claimed that his own conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and he did not challenge the trespass statute itself. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the entire trespass policy.
View caseVincent Vale was charged under one of two statutes carrying different penalties for the same firearm possession conduct. The statutes supplied no standard for deciding which charge to bring. Vale faced the risk that prosecutors would select the harsher statute without any statutory guidance.
Respondent Batchelder, a previously convicted felon, was found guilty in federal district court of receiving a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(h). The district court sentenced him under 18 U.S.C. §924(a) to five years’ imprisonment, the maximum term authorized for violation of §922(h). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction but, by a divided vote, remanded for resentencing. The majority recognized that respondent had been indicted and convicted under §922(h) and that §924(a) permits five years’ imprisonment for such violations, yet it interpreted the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow no more than the two-year maximum sentence provided by 18 U.S.C. App. §1202(a) because the substantive elements of §922(h) and §1202(a) are identical as applied to a convicted felon who unlawfully receives a firearm. The dissent found no basis in the Omnibus Act or its legislative history for engrafting the penalty provisions of §1202(a) onto §§922(h) and 924(a). The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1979 and reviewed the judgment vacating respondent’s five-year prison sentence. The Omnibus Act contains two overlapping provisions in Titles IV and VII that both prohibit convicted felons from receiving firearms but authorize different maximum penalties, with §924(a) permitting up to five years and §1202(a) permitting up to two years. Section 922(h) is contained in Title IV of the Omnibus Act and §1202(a) is located in Title VII; the former derived from the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 while the latter was a last-minute floor amendment to the Omnibus Act.
View caseA statute must give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and must supply explicit standards that constrain law enforcement discretion. Failure on either prong violates due process.
Supporting sources
No. The doctrine also reaches attorney disciplinary rules and quasi-criminal ordinances that impose sanctions or dispersal orders, because those measures likewise threaten liberty interests without fair notice.
Supporting sources
Such ordinances leave the line between lawful presence and prohibited conduct to an officer's subjective assessment of unseen mental states. This supplies neither fair notice to citizens nor meaningful limits on enforcement discretion.
Supporting sources
No. Training on proxies such as sitting without shopping bags still requires officers to infer an unobservable purpose, so the core defect of standardless discretion remains.
Supporting sources
A vague statute impermissibly transfers basic policy decisions to police, judges, and juries on an ad hoc basis, undermining the constitutional requirement that legislatures define crimes with sufficient definiteness.
Supporting sources
…enforcement by failing to provide sufficiently definite guidelines for law enforcement officials. Pp. 355-361. (a) Although the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage…