void-for-vagueness doctrine in Ohio

2022The third value is “‘to ensure that fundamental constitutionally protected freedoms are not unreasonably impinged or inhibited.’” Id., quoting id. “‘Proper constitutional analysis necessitates a review of each of these rationales with respect to the challenged statutory language.’” Id., quoting id. {¶32} In Grayned v. Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104 , 108–109, 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 2298–2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 , 227–228, the United States Supreme Court set out the following guidelines for evaluating a void for vagueness claim: Vague laws offend several important values.

2022The third value is “‘to ensure that fundamental constitutionally protected freedoms are not unreasonably impinged or inhibited.’” Id., quoting id. “‘Proper constitutional analysis necessitates a review of each of these rationales with respect to the challenged statutory language.’” Id., quoting id. {¶32} In Grayned v. Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104 , 108–109, 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 2298–2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 , 227–228, the United States Supreme Court set out the following guidelines for evaluating a void for vagueness claim: Vague laws offend several important values.

2018Cuyahoga Nos. 89190, 91027, and 91028, 2009-Ohio-624 , 2009 WL 344988 , ¶ 42, citing State v. Williams , 88 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2000-Ohio-428 , 728 N.E.2d 342 . {¶ 20} "The void-for-vagueness doctrine does not require statutes to be drafted with scientific precision." (Citation omitted.) Perez v. Cleveland , 78 Ohio St.3d 376 , 378, 678 N.E.2d 537 (1997).

2010“The void-for-vagueness Highland App. No. 09CA29 12 doctrine ensures that individuals can ascertain what the law requires of them. * * * In order to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge, the statute at issue must be written so that a person of common intelligence is able to determine what conduct is prohibited, and the statute must provide sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 , 532, 2000-Ohio-428 , citing Chicago v. Morales (1999), 527 U.S. 41, 56-57 (other internal citation omitted). {¶37} The relevant provision of R

2026The appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision only on questions of law to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion in finding that the administrative order was [or was not] supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.” Boice v. Ottawa Hills, 2013-Ohio-4769, ¶ 7 . {¶10} “The void-for-vagueness doctrine is a component of the right to due process and is rooted in concerns that laws provide fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement.” Huron v. Kisil, 2025-Ohio-2921, ¶ 10 , quoting In re Columbus S. Power Co., 2012-Ohio-5690, ¶ 20 .

2026July 14, 2000), for the proposition that an ordinance cannot “delegate basic policy matters to enforcement officials for resolution on a subjective basis.” Based on its analysis, the trial court dismissed the misdemeanor charge against Hake for violating R.C. 3714.13(B) by violating Adm.Code 3745-400-04(B). {¶ 16} “The void-for-vagueness doctrine is a component of the right to due process and is rooted in concerns that laws provide fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement.” In re Columbus S. Power Co., 2012-Ohio-5690, ¶ 20 , citing Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 , 412 (2010).

2024Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153, ¶ 25 . * * * Evans, supra, at ¶ 21. {¶12} Based on our prior review of this issue, we reject Appellant’s argument. {¶13} Regarding Appellant’s void-for-vagueness claim, this court stated: “‘(A) law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is written so that a person of common intelligence is able to ascertain what conduct is prohibited, and if the law provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 , 2003- Ohio-4779, 795 N.E.2d 633, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3

2024Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153, ¶ 25 . * * * Evans, supra, at ¶ 21. {¶12} Based on our prior review of this issue, we reject Appellant’s argument. {¶13} Regarding Appellant’s void-for-vagueness claim, this court stated: “‘(A) law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is written so that a person of common intelligence is able to ascertain what conduct is prohibited, and if the law provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 , 2003- Ohio-4779, 795 N.E.2d 633, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3

2014When a party challenges a statute or rule under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, "the court must determine whether the enactment (1) provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions to Nos. 13AP-1020 and 13AP-1021 15 facilitate compliance by persons of ordinary intelligence and (2) is specific enough to prevent official arbitrariness or discrimination in its enforcement." Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2006-Ohio-3799 , ¶ 84, citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). {¶ 42} "The void-for-vagueness doctrine 'does not require statutes to be drafted with scientific precision.' "

2006She states that it is unclear what this new standard means. {¶ 24} The Supreme Court of Ohio, in Buckley v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2005-Ohio-2166 , recently set forth the following guidelines for determining whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague: {¶ 25} "`The due process clause of the Constitution provides the foundation for the void for vagueness doctrine.' Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum (C.A.6, 1995), 58 F.3d 1101 , 1104 .

2006She states that it is unclear what this new standard means. {¶ 24} The Supreme Court of Ohio, in Buckley v. Wilkins, 105 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2005-Ohio-2166 , recently set forth the following guidelines for determining whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague: {¶ 25} "`The due process clause of the Constitution provides the foundation for the void for vagueness doctrine.' Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum (C.A.6, 1995), 58 F.3d 1101 , 1104 .

2006"Laws are entitled to a `strong presumption of constitutionality and any party challenging the constitutionality of a law `bears the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. {¶ 16} The court in Buckley further stated that "`[t]he due process clause of the Constitution provides the foundation for the void for vagueness doctrine.'" Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum (C.A.6, 1995), 58 F.3d 1101 , 1104 . "[A] `civil statute that is not concerned with the First Amendment is only unconstitutionally vague if it is "`"so vague and

2016Appellant “must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute was so unclear that he could not reasonably understand that it prohibited the acts in which he engaged.” Id., citing Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-36 14 United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , 74 S.Ct. 808 , 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); 25 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Criminal Law, Section 8, at 106 (1981). {¶36} We have previously relied upon the void-for-vagueness test set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Collier: A tripartite analysis must be applied when examining the void- for-vagueness doctrine.

2016Appellant “must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute was so unclear that he could not reasonably understand that it prohibited the acts in which he engaged.” Id., citing Licking County, Case No. 15-CA-36 14 United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 , 74 S.Ct. 808 , 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); 25 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Criminal Law, Section 8, at 106 (1981). {¶36} We have previously relied upon the void-for-vagueness test set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Collier: A tripartite analysis must be applied when examining the void- for-vagueness doctrine.

2008Salem v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 244 , 246 , 63 O.O.2d 387 , 388-389 , 298 N.E.2d 138 , 140 .

2008Salem v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 244 , 246 , 63 O.O.2d 387 , 388-389 , 298 N.E.2d 138 , 140 .

2026The appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision only on questions of law to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion in finding that the administrative order was [or was not] supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.” Boice v. Ottawa Hills, 2013-Ohio-4769, ¶ 7 . {¶10} “The void-for-vagueness doctrine is a component of the right to due process and is rooted in concerns that laws provide fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement.” Huron v. Kisil, 2025-Ohio-2921, ¶ 10 , quoting In re Columbus S. Power Co., 2012-Ohio-5690, ¶ 20 .

2025SLIP OPINION NO. 2025-OHIO-2921 THE CITY OF HURON, APPELLEE, v. KISIL, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Huron v. Kisil, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2921 .] Criminal law—Constitutional law—Due process—Void-for-vagueness challenge— A defendant cannot mount a successful void-for-vagueness challenge if his conduct clearly falls within the activities proscribed by the challenged law—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed and cause remanded to trial court.

2024Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153, ¶ 25 . * * * Evans, supra, at ¶ 21. {¶12} Based on our prior review of this issue, we reject Appellant’s argument. {¶13} Regarding Appellant’s void-for-vagueness claim, this court stated: “‘(A) law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is written so that a person of common intelligence is able to ascertain what conduct is prohibited, and if the law provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 , 2003- Ohio-4779, 795 N.E.2d 633, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3

2024Montgomery No. 28644, 2020-Ohio-4153, ¶ 25 . * * * Evans, supra, at ¶ 21. {¶12} Based on our prior review of this issue, we reject Appellant’s argument. {¶13} Regarding Appellant’s void-for-vagueness claim, this court stated: “‘(A) law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is written so that a person of common intelligence is able to ascertain what conduct is prohibited, and if the law provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 , 2003- Ohio-4779, 795 N.E.2d 633, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3

2019Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 , 94 S.Ct. 1242 , 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) ; Grayned v. City of Rockford , 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) ; Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville , 405 U.S. 156 , 92 S.Ct. 839 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) ; *1085 Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926).

2019Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 , 94 S.Ct. 1242 , 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) ; Grayned v. City of Rockford , 408 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) ; Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville , 405 U.S. 156 , 92 S.Ct. 839 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) ; *1085 Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 , 46 S.Ct. 126 , 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926).

2019Safety Motor Vehicle Salvage (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 564, 574 , 693 N.E.2d 851 . ‘[A] law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is written so that a person of common intelligence is able to ascertain what conduct is prohibited, and if the law provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’ State v. Williams (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 533 , 728 N.E.2d 342 , citing Chicago v. Morales (1999), 527 U.S. 41, 56-57 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 .

2019Safety Motor Vehicle Salvage (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 564, 574 , 693 N.E.2d 851 . ‘[A] law will survive a void-for-vagueness challenge if it is written so that a person of common intelligence is able to ascertain what conduct is prohibited, and if the law provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’ State v. Williams (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 533 , 728 N.E.2d 342 , citing Chicago v. Morales (1999), 527 U.S. 41, 56-57 , 119 S.Ct. 1849 , 144 L.Ed.2d 67 .

2001In order for an ordinance to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge, it must “give sufficient warning so that individuals may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is prohibited by law.” Lebanon v. McClure (1988), 44 Ohio App.3d 114, 116 , 541 N.E.2d 1073, 1075 , citing Rose v. Locke (1975), 423 U.S. 48 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 .

2001In order for an ordinance to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge, it must “give sufficient warning so that individuals may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is prohibited by law.” Lebanon v. McClure (1988), 44 Ohio App.3d 114, 116 , 541 N.E.2d 1073, 1075 , citing Rose v. Locke (1975), 423 U.S. 48 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 .

2005Laws are entitled to a ‘strong presumption of constitutionality,’ and any party challenging the constitutionality of a law ‘bears the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Id. {¶ 82} “The void-for-vagueness doctrine ‘does not require statutes to be drafted with scientific precision.’ Perez v. Cleveland (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 376, 378 , 678 N.E.2d 537 .

2005Laws are entitled to a “strong presumption of constitutionality,” and any party challenging the constitutionality of a law “bears the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. {¶ 19} The void-for-vagueness doctrine “does not require statutes to be drafted with scientific precision.” Perez v. Cleveland (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 376, 378 , 678 N.E.2d 537 .

1994As a result it also offends the third value protected by the void-for-vagueness doctrine: it chills or inhibits people’s exercise of their constitutional rights.” Id., 67 Ohio St.3d at 382 , 618 N.E.2d at 145 .

1994As a result it also offends the third value protected by the void-for-vagueness doctrine: it chills or inhibits people’s exercise of their constitutional rights.” Id., 67 Ohio St.3d at 382 , 618 N.E.2d at 145 .