|
''Kolender v. Lawson'', , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that “loiterers” and “wanderers” provide identification. == Facts == Edward 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 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),〔 California Penal Code §647(e) read, in relevant part, :“Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (e) who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.” California later removed this section because of this lawsuit, replacing it with what used to be §647(f). 〕 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.〔 In ''People v. Solomon'' (1973), the Court construed § 647(e) as requiring that a person detained under that statute’s authority produce “credible and reliable identification carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself.” (33 Cal.App.3d 429, 439). The California Supreme Court denied review. Both the Ninth Circuit (658 F.2d 1362, 1364–1365, n. 3) and the U.S. Supreme Court (461 U.S. 352, 356, n. 4) used this construction in voiding § 647(e) for vagueness. 〕 William Kolender was a losing 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Kolender v. Lawson」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|