HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV01 - Sutherland V. City Of Fort Collins, Et Al - 022L - Sutherland HandoutA law is unconstitutional only if it "is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person
to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but
rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all." Bd. of Educ. of
Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Wilder, 960 P.2d 695, 703 (Colo. 1998)
(quoting Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d
214 (1971)).
Overall, "[t]he vagueness doctrine is not an exercise in semantics to emasculate
legislation; rather, it is a pragmatic means to ensure fairness. Where fairness can be
achieved by a commonsense reading ... we will not adopt a hypertechnical
construction to invalidate the provision." Ams. United for Separation of Church &
State Fund, Inc. v. State, 648 P.2d 1072, 1086 (Colo. 1982) (quoting People v.
Garcia, 197 Colo. 550, 595 P.2d 228, 231 (1979)).
From: ROCKY MOUNTAIN RETAIL v. City of Northglenn, 393 P. 3d 533 - Colo:
Supreme Court 2017
Also:
TEST OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS. A statute which either requires or
forbids an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of
law. Memorial Trusts, Inc. v. Beery, 144 Colo. 448, 356 P.2d 884 (1960)
The controlling principle in a void for vagueness challenge is whether the questioned
law either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its
application. People ex rel. City of Arvada v. Nissen, 650 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1982)