State v. Kaiser4/1/2003
AFFIRMED
Gerald Kaiser appeals his conviction for refusing to obey a peace officer, a class 1 misdemeanor violation of Scottsdale City Code section ("Code §") 19-13. He contends that the regulation is unconstitutional because it is both vague and overbroad, thereby denying him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For reasons that follow, we hold that the ordinance is constitutional.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Two Scottsdale peace officers stopped a car after an officer suspected that the driver, Kaiser's wife, was intoxicated. Kaiser was a passenger. When his wife got out of the car to talk with one officer, Kaiser yelled at his wife to not answer any questions or perform any field-sobriety tests. Then, despite being told by the other officer to remain in the car, Kaiser got out and attempted to approach his wife and the investigating officer. The officers repeatedly instructed Kaiser not to interfere with the investigation and to get back in the vehicle, and, when he failed to comply, they told him to return to the car or he would be arrested. Kaiser persisted, repeatedly defying their orders. Eventually, he was arrested for failing to return to and remain in the car when told to do so and for interfering with the investigation. Throughout the incident, Kaiser appeared to the officers to be angry, disruptive, aggressive and profane, making comments that the officers interpreted as threats.
Charged with refusing to obey a peace officer, Kaiser was convicted in Scottsdale City Court for having violated Code § 19-13, which provides in pertinent part that " o person shall refuse to obey a peace officer engaged in the discharge of his duty." He appealed his conviction to the Maricopa County Superior Court, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ("A.R.S.") § 22-371 (2002), insisting that the law is vague and overbroad. The court rejected his argument and affirmed his conviction, finding that the ordinance was not vague and that Kaiser had no standing to complain that the ordinance is overbroad. Kaiser brought the same challenge to this court. A.R.S. § 22-375 (A)(2002).
DISCUSSION
Because this matter originated in municipal court, our jurisdiction is limited to a review of the facial validity of the ordinance. State v. Alawy, 198 Ariz. 363, 364 , 9 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2000); State v. Singer, 190 Ariz. 48, 50, 945 P.2d 359, 361 (App. 1997). Accordingly, if the regulation is facially valid, we do not proceed to analyze how it was applied to the individual defendant. Alawy, 198 Ariz. at 364 , 9 P.3d at 1103.
Before we determine whether an ordinance is facially valid, however, we must first address whether a defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. Id. at 364 , 9 P.3d at 1103. "Even if an ordinance or statute is vague in some particulars, a person 'to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.'" Id. (quoting State v. Trachtman, 190 Ariz. 331, 334, 947 P.2d 905, 908 (App. 1997)(quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974))). See State v. McLamb, 188 Ariz. 1, 6, 932 P.2d 266, 271 (App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 814 (1997). Even so, " nder some circumstances, litigants whose own activities are constitutionally unprotected can nonetheless challenge a statute as overbroad if the law 'substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court.'" State v. Musser, 194 Ariz. 31, 32 , 977 P.2d 131, 132 (1999)(quoting Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 444 U.S. 620, 634 (1980)).
Peace officers may "take such steps as reasonably ne
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|