The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 7 votes for Lawson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Voted with the majority
Burger
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Wrote a dissent
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Powell
Voted with the minority, joined White's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1320/>
(last visited ).