Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> CASEYJARMAN ~1•~+^_• <br /> V,••-~ ~ ~4 <br /> County Clerk i~ <br /> <br /> Mai[ingAddress: Business Address: <br /> (Former County Bui[din~ •~r•~,o.,N',+i~ 333 Kilauea Avenue, Second Floor <br /> 25 Aupuni Street Ben Franklin Building <br /> <br /> Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 <br /> County of Hawai `i <br /> Office of the County Clerk <br /> Legislative Research Branch <br /> Telephone: (808) 961-8255 Facsimile: (808) 961-8912 <br /> January 3, 2007 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> To: Casey Jarman <br /> County Clerk <br /> From: Kenneth Goodenow~~ <br /> Legal Specialist <br /> Re: Constitutionality ofAnimal Control Bill (Bi11258 Draft 6) <br /> As discussed previously, it is my opinion that Bi11258 Draft 6 is unlikely to be found <br /> unconstitutionally vague. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief <br /> overview of my reseazch on this subject. <br /> In determining whether a law is vague, the Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that due <br /> process of law requires that a statute or ordinance do two things: First, the law must state <br /> with reasonable clazity the act that it proscribes, or in other words, an ordinance must <br /> give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is <br /> prohibited. The second requirement is that the ordinance must provide fixed standards <br /> for adjudging guilt.t Every ordinance is a delegation oflaw-implementation power to the <br /> executive branch (in this case to prosecutors and police) and to the judiciazy; due process <br /> requires courts to call for more specific directions from the legislature when important <br /> liberties aze involved. If these conditions aze not met, the ordinance is void for <br /> z <br /> vagueness. <br /> ~ These two requirements are "essentially indistinguishable" from the applicable standard under federal <br /> law: "Thus, we have so far not departed from federal constitutional law in the area of "void for vagueness" <br /> challenges to criminal statutes." State v. Lindstedt, 101 Haw. 153 (2003). <br /> z See State v. Guzman, 89 Haw. 27 (1998); State v. Kalama, 94 Haw. 60 (2000); State v. Kamal, 88 Haw. <br /> 292 (1998); State v. Trion, 71 Haw. 479 (1990). <br /> Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island <br /> Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer <br /> <br />