 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hookstra2/8/2002
ding to assert a facial challenge based upon vagueness.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Court of Appeals did not err in determining that § 9.08.050 was not unconstitutionally overbroad on its face and that Hookstra lacked standing to challenge the ordinance on grounds of vagueness. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
McCormack, J., not participating.
|