Kolender v. Lawson
75 L. Ed. 2d 903 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
Facts
Appellee Edward Lawson was detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977. These detentions were made pursuant to California Penal Code Ann. § 647(e), which requires persons who loiter or wander on streets to provide "credible and reliable" identification and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. Lawson was prosecuted only twice under this statute, resulting in one conviction and one dismissed charge. For example, one officer stopped Lawson late at night on a vacant street near a high crime area, while another detained him walking late in a business area due to burglaries. Lawson states he was never stopped for any other reason.
Procedural history
Lawson brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 647(e) was unconstitutional, an injunction, and damages. The District Court found the statute overbroad and enjoined its enforcement, but denied damages. Appellant H. A. Porazzo appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the unconstitutionality of § 647(e) and reversed the District Court on the damages issue, remanding for trial. The officers then appealed to this Court from the portion of the Court of Appeals' judgment declaring § 647(e) unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.
Issue
Is California Penal Code Ann. § 647(e), which requires individuals to provide "credible and reliable" identification when stopped by police, unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes, California Penal Code Ann. § 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it fails to clarify what constitutes "credible and reliable" identification. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Rule
The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires a penal statute to define criminal offenses with sufficient definiteness so ordinary people can understand prohibited conduct and to prevent arbitrary enforcement. A statute must establish minimal guidelines for law enforcement, as a failure to do so permits a "standardless sweep" allowing police to pursue personal predilections. Section 647(e) lacks a standard for what satisfies the "credible and reliable" identification requirement, granting police virtually complete discretion. This discretion allows individuals to continue on public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" and implicates the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.