National Academies Press: OpenBook

Policing and Public Transportation (2022)

Chapter: C. Section 1983 Actions Challenging Laws for Being Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad

« Previous: B. Section 1983 Claims for Denial of Procedural Due Process
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"C. Section 1983 Actions Challenging Laws for Being Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Policing and Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26652.
×
Page 33

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TCRP LRD 58 33 or expel an individual,445 the rules did not include a procedure whereby a rider could contest a suspension or ban.446 In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that the MTTA’s rules “constrained its discretion to deny services,” because the rules created a “legitimate claim of entitlement to access MTTA transportation as long as a patron complies with the rules.”447 The appeals court remanded the case to the district court to consider the issue of whether Brown received sufficient process. In the proceedings on the remand to the district court, the “MTTA argue[d] that plaintiff had notice of MTTA’s complaint procedures and [that] he could have contested his ban[] but that he failed to take advantage of the procedures available to him.”448 However, the appeals court had held already that, under the Due Process Clause, Brown “had a property interest in riding the bus….”449 Thus, Brown had to be afforded “‘an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.’”450 Brown had not received a pre-deprivation hearing before he was banned.451 As there was “no formal post-depri- vation procedure,” Brown could not “have waived his right to post-deprivation process to challenge the ban.”452 The district court entered a permanent injunction that re- quired the MTTA to provide Brown a hearing to determine whether the ban should remain in place. At the hearing, Brown had to be permitted “to make arguments and present evidence in support of his request to rescind the ban.”453 C. Section 1983 Actions Challenging Laws for Being Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad An aggrieved plaintiff may challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance on the basis that the statute or ordinance is void for vagueness or is overbroad. In Benson v. City of Chicago,454 the plaintiff alleged that while she was sleeping in a chair near a baggage area at O’Hare Air- port, two police officers issued her a citation for trespassing in violation of Section 8-4-050 of the City of Chicago Municipal Code. The citation directed Benson to appear for an administra- tive hearing on a certain date, but it was unclear whether the arrest ing officers appeared for the hearing. The court terminated the proceeding in Benson’s favor. Benson sued only the city for declaratory relief that the trespass ordinance was unconstitu- tionally vague.455 445 Id. at *5 (citation omitted). 446 Id. at *6 (citation omitted). 447 Id. at *6-7 (citation omitted). 448 Id. at *8-9 (citation omitted). 449 Id. at *10 (citation omitted). 450 Id. at *11 (citation omitted). 451 Id. at *12. 452 Id. at *18. 453 Id. at *21 (footnote omitted). Although Brown made no showing of damages that he sustained because of the ban, Brown was entitled to nominal damages. Id. at *19. 454 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77390, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2006). 455 Id. at *2, 3. A state statute (or city ordinance) is “unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amend- ment” when it fails to “define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”456 In spite of any questions regarding the ordinance and Benson’s citation, the court held that there is “nothing vague about an ordinance that prohibits remaining on property after receiving notice from the owner to depart.”457 In Chad v. City of Fort Lauderdale,458 supra, the plaintiffs challenged the City’s rules and regulations that were intended to prevent “nuisance activity” on the beach, including Rule 7.5(c) prohibiting soliciting, begging, and panhandling. After the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs’ moved for a summary judgment. The plaintiffs argued that the rules violated the Fourteenth Amendment for being vague or overbroad, or both, as well as violated the First Amendment for being an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.459 The court held that the city’s Rule 7.5(c) was not void for vagueness: The void-for-vagueness doctrine is linked to the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Generally, the doctrine is rooted in notions of providing “fair notice and warning” to citizens of what any particular legislation prohibits or allows. The doctrine requires legislatures to set reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact to prevent “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”460 The court held that “[t]he absence of more limiting language than the terms themselves, ‘begging, panhandling, solicitation,’ is the very thing that saves the rule from vagueness. Had the City attempted to tailor the rule to only ‘aggressive’ types of solicita tion, the rule might very well have failed….”461 As for the plaintiffs’ argument that Rule 7.5(c) was over- broad, “[t]he threshold issue … [was] whether begging, pan- handling and solicitation are types of expression entitled to First Amendment protection.”462 Although Rule 7.5(c) applied to conduct protected by the First Amendment, the court held that the rule, nevertheless, “still qualifie[d] as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction on protected speech.”463 The rule was content-neutral, because it “‘applie[d] even-handedly to persons aspiring to solicit, beg or panhandle along the beach and adjacent sidewalk regardless of their agenda.’”464 What the rule prohibited was begging and soliciting “regardless of what the purpose or message behind the begging or solicitation may be. This form is simply a way of communicating[] and does 456 Id. at *3 (citation omitted). 457 Id. at *6. 458 66 F. Supp.2d 1242, 1243 (S.D. Fla. 1998). 459 Id. at 1244. 460 Id. (citation omitted). 461 Id. at 1245. 462 Id. at 1245-1246. 463 Id. at 1246 (footnote omitted). 464 Id. (citation omitted).

Next: XII. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES IN 1983 ACTIONS FOR THE DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW BASED ON DISPARATE TREATMENT OR DISPARATE IMPACT »
Policing and Public Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Compliance with transit-equipment and operations guidelines, FTA financing initiatives, private-sector programs, and labor or environmental standards relating to transit operations are some of the legal issues and problems unique to transit agencies.

The TRB Transit Cooperative Research Program's TCRP Legal Research Digest 58: Policing and Public Transportation provides a comprehensive analysis of constitutional issues and summarizes current laws and practices that apply to policing by public transportation agencies.

Supplemental to the Digest is Appendix A: Agreements, Policies, Reports, and Other Documents Provided by Public Transportation Authorities for the Report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!