Facts
- California Penal Code § 647(e) made it a crime to “loiter or wander on the streets” and, upon police request, fail to provide identification and account for one’s presence.
- State courts narrowed the statute to require (1) a stop supported by reasonable suspicion and (2) “credible and reliable” identification, meaning identification reasonably assuring authenticity and allowing later contact.
- Edward Lawson, a Black pedestrian who often walked in predominantly white neighborhoods in San Diego County, was repeatedly stopped and questioned by police while walking.
- Over about 18 months, Lawson was stopped or arrested roughly 15 times under § 647(e); he was prosecuted twice and convicted once.
- Lawson challenged § 647(e) in federal court, alleging the statute lacked clear standards and permitted arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Issues
- Whether California Penal Code § 647(e), as construed to require “credible and reliable” identification during a reasonable-suspicion stop, is facially void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating § 647(e) in a 7–2 decision.
- The Court held § 647(e) facially unconstitutional because it failed to specify what a person must do to satisfy the requirement to provide “credible and reliable” identification.
- The statute vested virtually complete discretion in police to decide whether identification was sufficient and whether to arrest, encouraging arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
- The Court resolved the case on vagueness grounds and did not decide the Fourth Amendment issue addressed by the court of appeals.
Legal Principles
- A penal statute is void for vagueness if it (1) fails to define prohibited conduct with sufficient definiteness for ordinary people to understand and (2) fails to provide minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement, thereby inviting arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- Vagueness doctrine is centrally concerned with restraining standardless police discretion, not solely with providing notice.
- “Stop-and-identify” requirements must clearly specify what identification is required; otherwise, they risk unconstitutional delegation of arrest authority to officers’ subjective judgments.
- Laws regulating loitering or wandering may implicate freedom-of-movement interests and are especially susceptible to abuse when they lack objective enforcement standards.
Conclusion
The Court held California Penal Code § 647(e) void for vagueness because the “credible and reliable” identification requirement lacked ascertainable standards, effectively authorizing arrests based on officers’ subjective determinations and enabling arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement in violation of due process.