Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: Under Minnesota law, when will statutes be found to be unconstitutionally vague?
| Area of Law: | Administrative Law, Administrative Law & Regulation (Federal and State), Constitutional Law |
| Keywords: | Vague statutes; The void-for-vagueness doctrine; Void |
| Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
| Cited Cases: | 431 N.W.2d 868; 371 N.W.2d 525 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 10/01/2014 |
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a law be definite, i.e., that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and the statute does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” State v. Newstrom, 371 N.W.2d 525, 528 (Minn. 1985).
“Vague statutes are prohibited under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.” State v. Hyland, 431 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “Vague laws are prohibited because they trap the innocent by not providing adequate warning of unlawful conduct and unleash the potential for unfair and uneven law enforcement by not establishing minimal guidelines.” Id. Thus, “a statute is void due to vagueness if it defines the forbidden or required act or acts in terms so vague that individuals must guess at its meaning.” Humanensky v. Minn. Bd. Md. Exam’rs, 525 N.W.2d 559, 564 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
[…]