COM 0017.005 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Memo to Casey Jannan 01/03/07 Page 4 In State v. Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d 496 (2006), the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals held that a city noise ordinance which prohibited the playing of music "in such a manner as to unreasonably disturb neighboring persons of ordinazy sensibilities" adequately described the prohibited conduct and did not permit arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and was thus not unconstitutionally vague. In Commonwealth v. Ferreri, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 966(1991), a Massachusetts's appellate court held that term "excessive barking" in a dog control statute was not unconstitutionally vague. That court concluded: "A statute is not vague in the...constitutional sense if it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard." In State v. Smith, 46 N.J. 510, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 838 (1966), the Supreme Court of New Jersey sustained a statute which provided that "[a]ny person who by noisy or disorderly conduct disturbs or interferes with the quiet or good order of any place of assembly is a disorderly person." The New Jersey Supreme Court stated: Defendant says the statute is void for vagueness because it does not spell out the degree of noise or the details of a disorder which will offend. Of course, the statute does not do so in specific terms, and it may be doubted that the ingenuity of man could meet that demand if the Constitution made it. But the Constitution does not insist upon the impossible. It asks only what the subject will reasonably permit, and hence if there is a public interest in need of protection, due process does not stand in the way merely because the subject defies minute prescription. I hope that this brief summary of my research on this issue has been helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or require additional information. Serving the Interests ojthe People ojOur Island Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer