Kolender v. Lawson

NAME:	Kolender (“P”) v. Lawson (“D”)	405 U.S. 156	1972
FACTS:	· D was detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between 3/75 and 1/77 pursuant to Cal Penal Code Ann. § 647(e). D was prosecuted twice, and convicted once.
PROCEDURE:	D brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that § 647(e) is unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction seeking to restrain enforcement of the statute, and compensatory and punitive damages against the various officers who detained him.
ISSUE:	Is the Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 647(e) unconstitutional and void-for-vagueness?
HOLDING:	YES. The statute is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a “credible and reliable” identification.
REASONING:	· Our Constitution is designed to maximize individual freedoms w/in a framework of ordered liberty. Statutory limitations on those freedoms are examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or certainty of expression. · (RULE): 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 arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. · Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a “credible and reliable” identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. · It is clear that the full discretion accorded to the police to determine whether the suspect has provided a “credible and reliable” identification necessarily “entrust[s] lawmaking ‘to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat,’” and “confers on police a virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation.”
DISPOSITION:	Judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed
DISSENT:	None