## Facts

- Ralph Alexander Caswell, Kenneth Eugene Grassi, and 14 others were charged with violating California Penal Code § 647(d) for allegedly loitering in or about public toilets to engage in or solicit lewd or unlawful acts.
- Some defendants were also charged with committing a lewd act in a public place (§ 647(a)) and indecent exposure (§ 314(1)).
- Defendants demurred to the § 647(d) counts, claiming the statute was facially void for vagueness; the municipal court overruled the demurrers.
- Defendants sought writ relief in superior court; after an intermediate appellate decision found § 647(d) vague, the superior court granted relief to all defendants except Grassi (whose petition was denied by a different judge).
- The Court of Appeal consolidated the matters, declined to follow the intermediate appellate decision, held § 647(d) constitutional, and directed the superior court to vacate the relief it had granted.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 647(d) is facially unconstitutional for vagueness.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 647(d), which criminalizes loitering in or about a public toilet for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting lewd, lascivious, or unlawful acts, is facially void for vagueness under due process.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held § 647(d) is not unconstitutionally vague on its face.
- The court ruled the statute gives adequate notice of prohibited conduct and sufficiently definite standards to limit arbitrary enforcement.
- The court approved continued prosecutions under § 647(d) and rejected the contrary intermediate appellate reasoning that had found the statute vague.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal law is void for vagueness if it fails to (1) provide adequate notice of the conduct prohibited or (2) supply sufficiently definite enforcement standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory application.
- A specific-intent element can materially reduce vagueness concerns by confining liability to persons who act with a defined illicit purpose.
- In context, “loiter” may be treated as a term with a criminal-law connotation that excludes ordinary, lawful waiting or presence, particularly when paired with a prohibited purpose.
- Statutory phrases may be saved from vagueness by established judicial constructions; in this setting, “any unlawful act” was construed to refer to acts of the same general kind as the referenced lewd or lascivious conduct rather than any unrelated illegality.
- A narrowly defined location element (here, “in or about any toilet open to the public”) further constrains enforcement discretion and clarifies the scope of prohibited conduct.

## Conclusion

Penal Code § 647(d) survived a facial vagueness challenge because its specific-intent requirement, limited geographic scope, and narrowing judicial constructions provided fair notice and enforceable standards, allowing prosecutions to proceed.


People v. Superior Court (Caswell), 46 Cal. 3d 381, 758 P.2d 1046 (Cal. 1988)