Unconstitutional vagueness
Unconstitutional vagueness is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in United States federal courts. It is derived from the due process doctrine found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. No one must risk criminal prosecution merely because he or she cannot reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited under the law.[1]
Examples
- The Florida Supreme Court, in Franklin v. State, ruled that the state's felony ban on sodomy was unconstitutionally vague because an "average person of common intelligence" could not reasonably know, without speculating, whether "abominable and detestable crime against nature" included oral sex or only anal sex.[2]
- Papachristou v. Jacksonville and Kolender v. Lawson were two Supreme Court cases where the court struck down laws against vagrancy for unconstitutional vagueness; in restricting activities like "loafing," "strolling," or "wandering around from place to place," the law gave arbitrary power to the police and, since people could not reasonably know what sort of conduct is forbidden under the law, could potentially criminalize innocuous everyday activities.[1]
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, struck down a provision of Akron's abortion law which required that physicians dispose of fetal remains in a "humane and sanitary manner." "Humane" was judged to be unconstitutionally vague as a "definition of conduct subject to criminal prosecution"; the physician could not be certain whether or not his conduct was legal.[3]
- The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act has been ruled to be so imprecise as to be unconstitutional as applied to certain defendants.[4]
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a supervised release condition prohibiting a defendant from possessing "all forms of pornography, including legal adult pornography" was unconstitutionally vague because it posed a real danger that the prohibition on pornography might ultimately translate to a prohibition on whatever the officer personally found titillating.[5]
See also
Notes