facial vagueness challenge in Washington

2016Even if a facial vagueness challenge were available to Dabbagh, the challenge would fail. "'A statute is void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.'" In re Contested Election ofSchoessler, 140Wn.2d 368, 388, 998 P.2d 818 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Halev v. Med.

2016VIII. ¶52 Even if a facial vagueness challenge were available to Dabbagh, the challenge would fail. “ A statute is void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’ ” In re Contested Election of Schoessler, 140 Wn.2d 368, 388 , 998 P.2d 818 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Haley v. Med, Disciplinaiy Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 739-40 , 818 P.2d 1062 (1991)).

2016VIII. ¶52 Even if a facial vagueness challenge were available to Dabbagh, the challenge would fail. “ A statute is void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’ ” In re Contested Election of Schoessler, 140 Wn.2d 368, 388 , 998 P.2d 818 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Haley v. Med, Disciplinaiy Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 739-40 , 818 P.2d 1062 (1991)).

2016VIII. ¶52 Even if a facial vagueness challenge were available to Dabbagh, the challenge would fail. “ A statute is void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’ ” In re Contested Election of Schoessler, 140 Wn.2d 368, 388 , 998 P.2d 818 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Haley v. Med, Disciplinaiy Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 739-40 , 818 P.2d 1062 (1991)).

2008If a statute “implicates no constitutionally protected conduct,” a facial vagueness challenge can succeed only if the statute is “impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Will. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S. Ct. 1186 , 71 L.

2008If a statute “implicates no constitutionally protected conduct,” a facial vagueness challenge can succeed only if the statute is “impermissibly vague in all of its applications.” Will. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S. Ct. 1186 , 71 L.

2005When evaluating a statute as applied, we test for “ ‘unconstitutional vagueness by inspecting the actual conduct of the party who challenges the ordinance and not by examining hypothetical situations at the periphery of the [statute’s] scope.’ ” Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wn.2d 678, 708 , 958 P.2d 273 (1998) (quoting Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 182-83 ). ¶30 Given this background, Stevenson asserts both facial and as applied challenges.

2005When evaluating a statute as applied, we test for "`unconstitutional vagueness by inspecting the actual conduct of the party who challenges the ordinance and not by examining hypothetical situations at the periphery of the [statute's] scope.'" Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wash.2d 678, 708 , 958 P.2d 273 (1998) (quoting Douglass, 115 Wash.2d at 182-83 , 795 P.2d 693 ). ¶ 30 Given this background, Stevenson asserts both facial and as applied challenges.

2005When evaluating a statute as applied, we test for “ ‘unconstitutional vagueness by inspecting the actual conduct of the party who challenges the ordinance and not by examining hypothetical situations at the periphery of the [statute’s] scope.’ ” Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wn.2d 678, 708 , 958 P.2d 273 (1998) (quoting Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 182-83 ). ¶30 Given this background, Stevenson asserts both facial and as applied challenges.

2005When evaluating a statute as applied, we test for "`unconstitutional vagueness by inspecting the actual conduct of the party who challenges the ordinance and not by examining hypothetical situations at the periphery of the [statute's] scope.'" Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wash.2d 678, 708 , 958 P.2d 273 (1998) (quoting Douglass, 115 Wash.2d at 182-83 , 795 P.2d 693 ). ¶ 30 Given this background, Stevenson asserts both facial and as applied challenges.

1998In State v. Carver, 113 Wash.2d 591 , 781 P.2d 1308 , 789 P.2d 306 (1989), we noted that "[u]nless First Amendment freedoms are involved, this court generally will only determine whether a statute is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case." Carver, 113 Wash.2d at 599 , 781 P.2d 1308 , 789 P.2d 306 (emphasis added).

1998In State v. Carver, 113 Wash.2d 591 , 781 P.2d 1308 , 789 P.2d 306 (1989), we noted that "[u]nless First Amendment freedoms are involved, this court generally will only determine whether a statute is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case." Carver, 113 Wash.2d at 599 , 781 P.2d 1308 , 789 P.2d 306 (emphasis added).

2025She cites the concurring opinion in City of Sumner v. Walsh, 148 Wn.2d 490, 503-04 , 61 P.3d 1111 (2003) (Chambers, J., concurring), asserting that a facial vagueness challenge is permissible if it impacts the fundamental right to move freely in public spaces.

2025She cites the concurring opinion in City of Sumner v. Walsh, 148 Wn.2d 490, 503-04 , 61 P.3d 1111 (2003) (Chambers, J., concurring), asserting that a facial vagueness challenge is permissible if it impacts the fundamental right to move freely in public spaces.

2020In contrast to a constitutional challenge to a statute, the challenge is to sentencing conditions that apply uniquely to an individual defendant, who clearly has standing to challenge them, as terms of his or her sentence, on the basis of claimed illegality. 164 Wn.2d at 750-51 .

2018A.D., 193 Wn.

2016VIII. ¶52 Even if a facial vagueness challenge were available to Dabbagh, the challenge would fail. “ A statute is void for vagueness if it is framed in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.’ ” In re Contested Election of Schoessler, 140 Wn.2d 368, 388 , 998 P.2d 818 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Haley v. Med, Disciplinaiy Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 739-40 , 818 P.2d 1062 (1991)).

2008If a statute "implicates no constitutionally protected conduct," a facial vagueness challenge can succeed only if the statute is "impermissibly vague in all of its applications." Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494-95 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). "`[A]ll'" of a statute's "`applications'" includes application to the challenger, and therefore the factual record of the law's application to the challenger is "not unimportant." Douglass, 115 Wash.2d at 182 n. 8, 795 P.2d 693 (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 497 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 )

1990State v. Worrell, 111 Wn.2d 537, 541 , 761 P.2d 56 (1988).

1990State v. Worrell, 111 Wn.2d 537, 541 , 761 P.2d 56 (1988).

1990Ed. 2d 505 , 94 S. Ct. 1209 (1974). 8 Even if a facial vagueness challenge were appropriate, the factual record in this case would still be inadequate.

1990Ed. 2d 605 , 94 S. Ct. 1242 (1974)). 7 A facial vagueness challenge to an ordinance is a challenge that the terms of the ordinance "are so loose and obscure that they cannot be clearly applied in any context." Basiardanes v. Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203, 1210 (5th Cir. 1982).