|
Abstract
| Argument: |
Monday, November 8, 1982
|
| Decision: |
Monday, May 2, 1983 |
| Issues: |
Due Process, Miscellaneous |
|
Advocates
| A. Wells Petersen |
(Argued the cause for the appellants) |
| Mark D. Rosenbaum |
(By invitation of the Court, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below) |
|
Facts of the Case
Lawson was a law-abiding black man of unusual deportment (he wore his hair in long dreadlocks). Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment when he walked in white neighborhoods. Lawson challenged the California law "that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a 'credible and reliable' identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer."
Question
Is the California statute unconstitutionally vague?
Conclusion
The law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause for an arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone. The majority hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.