Sociology Of Law

I’m working on a Law exercise and need support.

Please read the following case and independently write your own brief for the following case. You can use the link below to find the case.

Supreme Court case Kansas v. Marsh (2005). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-117…

With regard to the discussion board: Please write your own opinion about the facts of the case. Do you agree with the holding ? Two paragraph maximum.

Read the case twice and use the model provided as a guide.

For purposes of this discussion provide your opinion to the ruling of the court and provide support for why you have the perspective you do. Provide your answer and respond to one thread.

The following is SAMPLE you may want to use this as template

Title: State v. Metzger

Citation: 319 N.W. 2d 459 (Neb. 1982)

Facts: ADD YOUR VERSION OF THE FACTS HERE

ISSUE: IS THIS ORDINANCE VAGUE?

The pertinent portion of § 9.52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal

Code, under which Metzger was charged, provides as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln … to commit any indecent, immodest or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see the same.

What is the definition of indecent? Definition of Immodest? What is a filthy Act? Does the rest of the statute go on define this and provide adequate examples ?

How would one know they were violating this statute?

The issue here is, should this statute be void for vagueness? The vagueness

Holding: The holding is how the court rules, A criminal statute cannot rest upon an uncertain foundation. The crime and the elements constituting it must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose in advance what course it is lawful for him to pursue. Penal statutes prohibiting the doing of certain things and providing a punishment for their violation should not admit of such a double meaning that the citizen may act upon one conception of its requirements and the courts upon another. A statute which forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential elements of due process of law. It is not permissible to enact a law which in effect spreads an all-inclusive net for the feet of everybody upon the chance that, while the innocent will surely be entangled in its meshes, some wrongdoers may also be caught….

Several other jurisdictions which have viewed ordinances with the same general intent in mind have reached similar conclusions. In the case of State v. Sanders, 245 S.E.2d 397 (1978), the South Carolina Court of Appeals was presented with a statute making it a misdemeanor for members of the opposite sex to occupy the same bedroom at a hotel for “any immoral purpose.” In finding the ordinance too vague and indefinite to comply with constitutional due process standards, the court said:

The court here refers to State v. Sanders, this reference to the Sanders court is intended to support the opinion of this court.