You are here: / VOID FOR VAGUENESS

Tag Archive for: VOID FOR VAGUENESS

, ,

Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague

The defendant was stopped by the police for a violation of a city ordinance prohibiting “unnecessary noise” (a loud car stereo).  The defendant argued that the stop, which resulted in drug charges, was not justified by probable cause because the “unnecessary noise” ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague.” The Fourth Department determined the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it is tailored to the context of what can be heard more than 50 feet from a vehicle on a public highway and is sufficiently definite to put defendant on notice his conduct was forbidden:

Municipal ordinances “enjoy an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality’ ” …, and such legislative enactments “are to be construed so as to avoid constitutional issues if such a construction is fairly possible”… . “The void-for-vagueness doctrine embodies a rough idea of fairness’ ” …, and “an impermissibly vague ordinance is a violation of the due process of law” … . In addressing such a challenge, courts first “must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his [or her] contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute” … . “Second, the court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement”

* * * … [T]he City Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because the section under which defendant was convicted was tailored to a specific context—the creation of “unnecessary noise” beyond 50 feet of a motor vehicle on a public highway (City Ordinance § 40-16 [b]). In our view, “[w]hat is usual noise in the operation of a car [radio or other sound production device] has become common knowledge . . . and any ordinary motorist should have no difficulty in ascertaining” whether the noise in question violates the applicable standard … . Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the ordinance in question was “sufficiently definite” to put defendant on notice that his conduct was forbidden, and that it provided the police “with clear standards for enforcement” … . People v Stephens, 2015 NY Slip Op 03991, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

,

Defendant Convicted of Violating an Unconstitutional Statute Has Committed No Crime

The Second Department, in vacating defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated harassment, explained that when a substantive criminal statute, here Penal Law 240.30 (1), has been held unconstitutional, the defendant convicted of violating the statute has committed no crime:

“Where a substantive criminal statute has been held unconstitutional, there is no alternative but to give the decision retroactive effect for the declaration of unconstitutionality is a statement that the defendant has committed no crime” … [.] … [T]he Court of Appeals held that Penal Law § 240.30(1), as written at the time of the defendant’s conviction, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under both the state and federal constitutions … . Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree must be vacated … . People v Cesaire, 2015 NY Slip Op 03556, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

,

Albany County Cyberbullying Criminal Statute Overly Broad

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined that a statute passed by the Albany County Legislature, aimed at criminalizing cyberbullying, was too vague and broad to survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment:

Based on the text of the statute at issue, it is evident that Albany County “create[d] a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth”… . The language of the local law embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children … . As written, the Albany County law in its broadest sense criminalizes “any act of communicating . . . by mechanical or electronic means . . . with no legitimate . . . personal . . . purpose, with the intent to harass [or] annoy. . . another person.” On its face, the law covers communications aimed at adults, and fictitious or corporate entities, even though the county legislature justified passage of the provision based on the detrimental effects that cyberbullying has on school-aged children. The county law also lists particular examples of covered communications, such as “posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail.” But such methods of expression are not limited to instances of cyberbullying — the law includes every conceivable form of electronic communication, such as telephone conversations, a ham radio transmission or even a telegram. In addition, the provision pertains to electronic communications that are meant to “harass, annoy . . . taunt . . . [or] humiliate” any person or entity, not just those that are intended to “threaten, abuse . . . intimidate, torment . . . or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on” a child. In considering the facial implications, it appears that the provision would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example: an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult.  People v Marquan M, 2014 NY Slip Op 04881, CtApp 7-1-14

 

,

Aggravated Harassment Statute Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad/Criminal Impersonation Statute Encompasses Injury to Reputation

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals found the aggravated harassment statute unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and determined the “injury” contemplated by the criminal impersonation (second degree) statute encompassed injury to reputation.  The defendant's father is a “Dead Sea Scrolls” scholar.  The defendant engaged in an email campaign in which he created emails which purported to be from other “Dead Sea Scrolls” scholars and which had the effect of promoting his father's positions.  The defendant was convicted of criminal impersonation, aggravated harassment, identity theft, forgery and unauthorized use of a computer.  Ultimately the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for nine counts of criminal impersonation and the forgery counts.  With respect to harassment and criminal impersonation, the court wrote:

A person is guilty [of criminal impersonation in the second degree] when he or she “impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another” (Penal Law § 190.25).  * * *

…[W]e conclude that injury to reputation is within the “injury” contemplated by Penal Law § 190.25. Many people, particularly with a career in academia, as relevant to this case, value their reputations at least as much as their property,[FN2] and we believe the Legislature intended that the scope of the statute be broad enough [*7]to capture acts intended to cause injury to reputation.

Accordingly, a person may be found guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if he or she impersonates another with the intent to cause a tangible, pecuniary injury to another, or the intent to interfere with governmental operations … . In addition, a person who impersonates someone with the intent to harm the reputation of another may be found guilty of this crime.

Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a) provides that “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she . . . communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.” We agree with defendant that this statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad … .

In People v Dietze (75 NY2d 47 [1989]), this Court struck down a similar harassment statute, former Penal Law § 240.25, which prohibited the use of abusive or obscene language with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person. We determined that the statute [*8]was unconstitutional under both the State and Federal Constitutions, noting that “any proscription of pure speech must be sharply limited to words which, by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence” (id. at 52).

The reasoning applied in Dietze applies equally to our analysis of Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a). The statute criminalizes, in broad strokes, any communication that has the intent to annoy. Like the harassment statute at issue in Dietze, “no fair reading” of this statute's “unqualified terms supports or even suggests the constitutionally necessary limitations on its scope” … . People v Golb, 2014 NY Slip Op 03426, CtApp 5-13-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy