City of Seattle v. Pullman
514 P.2d 1059 · Washington Supreme Court · 1973
Facts
Defendant Ronny Gene Pullman was arrested at approximately 4:30 a.m. on May 23, 1971, after an officer stopped his car for excessive noise. The officer discovered the car lacked a proper muffler and Pullman was accompanying two minor females. Pullman, a high school senior, had attended a party with the girls, and they told the officer they were driving around the beach before going home. There was no evidence of the vehicle wandering, or the passengers loitering, idling, or playing. The record showed no improper operation of the automobile or impermissible conduct by anyone. Pullman was charged with violating a Seattle ordinance prohibiting accompanying a child during curfew hours.
Procedural history
Defendant Ronny Gene Pullman was charged and convicted in Seattle Municipal Court for violating a Seattle ordinance. He was subsequently convicted again on appeal in superior court. The case then reached this court for review.
Issue
Is the Seattle ordinance, which prohibits minors from "loitering, idling, wandering or playing" during curfew hours and others from accompanying them, unconstitutional due to vagueness or as an invalid exercise of the city's police power?
Holding
Yes, the court found the ordinance unconstitutional on two grounds: it is too vague, violating due process, and it is an invalid exercise of the city's police power. The defendant's conviction is therefore reversed.
Rule
An ordinance is unconstitutional if it is "void for vagueness," meaning persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning, violating due process by lacking fair notice and clear standards for enforcement. Words like "loiter, idle, wander, or play" are inherently vague and do not provide ascertainable standards to distinguish innocent from unlawful behavior. Additionally, an ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power if it makes no distinction between conduct calculated to harm and essentially innocent conduct, and if it lacks a real and substantial relationship to the government's interest in protecting minors. The government's interest in youth well-being does not permit criminalizing normally innocent activities without a clear connection to preventing harm.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.