Kolender v. Lawson
| 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)
75 L. Ed.2d 903, 103 S. Ct. 1855 (1983)
|
| 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, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide identification.
Edward Lawson was a law-abiding Muslim black man with suitable knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment in San Diego County, California, where he lived when as a pedestrian he walked in so-called "white neighborhoods." He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times by the San Diego Police within 18 months, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed).
Lawson challenged California Penal Code §647(e), which required persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer to do so. A California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal. App.3d 429, had construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity.
William Kolender was an appellant who was acting in his capacity as Chief of Police of San Diego, as was John Duffy who was acting in his capacity as Sheriff of San Diego County.
The Ninth Circuit, in Lawson v. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362 (1981), had additionally held that Penal Code §647(e) violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because it "subverts the probable cause requirement" by authorizing arrest for conduct that is no more than suspicious. "Vagrancy statutes cannot turn otherwise innocent conduct into a crime." Id. at 1367.
The Ninth Circuit also noted that "police knowledge of the identity of an individual they have deemed ‘suspicious’ grants the police unfettered discretion to initiate or continue the investigation of the person long after the detention has ended. Information concerning the stop, the arrest and the individual’s identity may become part of a large scale data bank." Id. at 1368.
...
Wikipedia