1/30/15

Prof. Meyers
Sec 002
Void-for-Vagueness Violation
Laws must be written clearly and concisely so that no offenders,
like Sam Stone, can argue that a certain law was imprecise. This is
known as a void-for-vagueness. The issue here is whether or not the
Dog Nuisance Ordinance and Possession of a Controlled Substance
statues are unconstitutional on the grounds of void-for-vagueness. To
determine whether Sam Stone has an argument, looking back at the
State v. Metzger case would help because it is a good example of how
one court applied the void-for-vagueness doctrine.
The test to determine whether a statute defining an offense is
void for uncertainty is whether the language may apply not only to a
particular act about which there can be little or no difference of
opinion, but equally to other acts about which there may be radical
differences, thereby devolving on the court the exercise of arbitrary
power of discriminating between the several classes of acts. This
should avoid the dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful
being left to conjecture.
For the Dog Nuisance Ordinance, the statues reads, No owner of
a dog may allow such a dog to disturb or annoy any other person by
frequent or habitual howling, yelping or barking. Whoever harbors
such a dog maintains a nuisance. It is clear that Mr. Stones dog,

Scooter, was a disturbance because that is the reason that several of

his neighbors called the cops in the first place. However, Stone could
argue that frequent or habitual howling yelping or barking could be
left for individual interpretation and judgment. One person could think
that a dog howling once in a while is natural, while others may find it
being a crime.
For the Possession of a Controlled Substance statute, it is written,
it shall be unlawful for a person to have within his/her possession or
control any controlled substance. For the purposes of this statute, a
controlled substance shall include: cocaine, heroineand marijuana.
Stone could argue that the cops came because of a puppy noise
violation, and they have no business looking into a random bag that
just so happened to be in his apartment. However, the statute clearly
states that it is unlawful for Mr. Stone to have any controlled
substance, being marijuana in this case. Both of these statues provide
some wiggle room for Mr. Stone, however declaring a statute as invalid
is an imperative decision.
Based on the factors listed above, the law would find that the
Dog Nuisance Ordinance is invalid because it is uncertain on how
people define a frequent and habitual howling. However, the
Possession of a Controlled Substance statute is not vague and clearly
states the offense. These conclusions both have solid basis in the law.
Sam Stone was smart to argue that the statutes were unconstitutional

because the lawmakers are not perfect, however he would only be

successful in arguing against the puppy making too much noise.