Kolender v. Lawson
- Decided
- May 2, 1983
- Docket
- 81-1320
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,306 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that facial vagueness challenges are permissible where "a law reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct” (citation omitted) — United States v. Ray Donald Loy (2001)
- holding that a statute is not void for vagueness if ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited — United States v. Mark Fisher, United States of America v. Devon Sutton, A.K.A. Devon Daniel Sutton, United States of America v. Arthur Robertson (2002)
- concluding that a penal statute requiring that a criminal suspect provide “credible and reliable” identification to police was unconstitutionally vague — United States v. Kilbride (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal presents a facial challenge to a criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a “credible and reliable” identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968).[1] We conclude that the statute as it has been construed is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated [*354] by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.