Comments on: A Crime That Can’t Be Defined

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:05:33 +0000

I understand that an incredible percentage of these cases are just thrown out of court by the judges. If true, it would add credence to the claim that these are just “street-sweeping” laws.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:42:52 +0000

This makes a lot of sense to me. The only people who will moan about this are those who think we need the “rule of law.” ;-)

By: Kent McManigal

Kent McManigal — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:00:36 +0000

This is precisely the kind of law the authoritarians like. The ones they can arrest you for violating at any time. I expect more of these types of counterfeit “laws” in the near future.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:50:08 +0000

"If a criminal statute is so broad that it allows an officer to essentially define a violation by what he sees in front of his or her eyes, there is no way that it can be reconciled with the idea that state has to have probable cause that a crime has been committed before it can even take someone into custody." It's called the void-for-vagueness doctrine and it's a Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment violation of due process, rather than a Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment violation of "probable cause to arrest." :-)