Kolender v. Lawson facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Kolender v. Lawson |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 8, 1982 Decided May 2, 1983 |
|
| Full case name | Kolender, Chief of Police of San Diego, et al. v. Edward Lawson |
| Citations | 461 U.S. 352 (more)
103 S. Ct. 1855; 75 L. Ed. 2d 903
|
| Prior history | 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981) |
| Holding | |
| The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Brennan |
| Dissent | White, joined by Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Kolender v. Lawson was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1983. This case was about whether certain laws were too unclear or "vague." These laws allowed police to ask people who were "loitering" (hanging around) or "wandering" to show "credible and reliable" identification. The Supreme Court had to decide if such vague laws were fair.
Contents
What Was Kolender v. Lawson About?
This Supreme Court case looked at a law from California. The law said that people who were loitering or wandering had to identify themselves to police. The main question was if this law was too unclear for people to understand and follow.
The Story of Edward Lawson
The case started because of a man named Edward C. Lawson. He was a law-abiding citizen who knew a lot about the U.S. Constitution. Lawson lived in San Diego County, California. He was often stopped and questioned by the police while walking in certain neighborhoods.
Over about 18 months, police stopped Lawson many times. He faced legal trouble because of this law. Lawson believed the law was unfair and challenged it in court.
What Was the Law?
Edward Lawson challenged a California law called Penal Code § 647(e). This law said that if you were "loitering" or "wandering" on the streets, you had to identify yourself. You also had to explain why you were there if a police officer asked.
A California court had previously said that "credible and reliable" identification meant it had to be truly believable. It needed to have a "reasonable assurance" that it was real.
Why Was the Law a Problem?
The problem was that the law didn't clearly explain what "credible and reliable" identification meant. It also didn't clearly define "loitering" or "wandering." This made it hard for people to know exactly what they needed to do to follow the law. It also gave police a lot of power to decide who was breaking the law.
William Kolender was the Chief of Police of San Diego. John Duffy was the Sheriff of San Diego County. They were involved in the case because they were in charge of the police departments that used this law.
