External links
Wikiquote has quotations related to Edward C. Lawson .
Edward C. Lawson (born 1946 or 1947) [1] [2] was an African American civil rights activist, who was the respondent in the case of Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 (1983), in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California statute authorizing a police officer to arrest a person for refusing to present identification was unconstitutionally vague.
Aside from his landmark supreme court case, very few biographical details are known about Lawson, a man described by the Los Angeles Times as "mysterious, even secretive". [1] Said to the owner of a San Francisco-based business in 1982, he was reportedly a vegetarian, and claimed that he was entirely sober, refusing all drugs and alcohol. [1] In 1993, he avoided discussing "exactly how he makes a living", only indicating that by then, he ran a business in Los Angeles and was a member of the Screen Actors Guild. [1]
Lawson is a protagonist in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), a significant civil rights case. Between 1975 and 1977, while living in San Diego, Lawson was arrested fifteen times for violating a California law which made illegal "wander[ing] upon the streets" and failing to provide identity when prompted by a peace officer. [2] He believed that his arrests were racial discrimination, noting that he was an African-American man who went for walks in his mostly white neighborhood. [1] He challenged the constitutionality of the law in court, and in 1983 the Supreme Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally vague in the latitude it provided police to determine what constituted a violation.
This case is of historical importance not only because the California statute was voided, but also because it is one of the few examples of an ordinary citizen successfully representing himself all the way through a U.S. District Court. By the time the case arrived at the Supreme Court, he was represented by attorney Robert H. Lynn, through the American Civil Liberties Union. [2] Lawson received political support at the time from prominent Black leaders including Jesse Jackson, activist/comedian Dick Gregory, U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters D-Los Angeles, U.S. Congressman John Conyers D-Detroit.
In 1983, Carl Stern, the CBS Evening News U.S. Supreme Court reporter commented that this case was the most reported U.S. Supreme Court case that year. Stern was referring to front-page newspaper articles in The New York Times , The Washington Post , Chicago Tribune , The Miami Herald , Los Angeles Times as well as articles in Newsweek , Time , Fortune , The Village Voice and other news publications. Additionally, Lawson made repeated appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show , The Phil Donahue Show , Larry King Live , Crossfire , The Ricki Lake Show , The Today Show , and Good Morning America .
Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe commented during an appearance[ when? ] on The Oprah Winfrey Show that this case was the last time that the U.S. Supreme Court had decided in favor of a defendant in a civil rights case of this magnitude.
California Penal Code § 647(e) was repealed by the California Legislature in 2008.
The San Diego County Sheriff's Office (SDSO) is a law enforcement agency serving San Diego County, California. It was established in 1850. It is the largest law enforcement agency in the county and one of the largest sheriff's offices in the United States, with over 4,700 employees, an annual budget of over $1.1 billion, and a service area over 4,500 square miles extending to a 60-mile international border.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner, Rubin Gottesman, on three charges of trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. In 1989, a federal judge found Gottesman guilty and later sentenced him to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.
Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), was a landmark federal court case that ruled that segregation on public transportation was unconstitutional. The case was heard before a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on the segregation of Montgomery and Alabama state buses. The panel consisted of Middle District of Alabama Judge Frank Minis Johnson, Northern District of Alabama Judge Seybourn Harris Lynne, and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Rives. The main plaintiffs in the case were Aurelia Browder, Claudette Colvin, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith. Their attorney, Fred Gray, also approached Jeanetta Reese to join the suit, but intimidation by segregationists caused her to withdraw.
In American constitutional law, a statute may be void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand what acts or duties are required or restricted. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.
A civil gang injunction or CGI is a type of restraining order issued by courts in the United States prohibiting gang members in particular cities from participating in certain specified activities. It is based on the legal theory that gang activity constitutes a public nuisance that can prevent non–gang members of the community from enjoying peace and public order. An injunction is obtained against the gang itself, after which the police and district attorney may decide against whom they will enforce it. Law enforcement use gang injunctions as a tool to label people as gang members and restrict their activities in a defined area (ACLU).
In the United States, qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine created by the Supreme Court that protects government actors for actions taken while acting in their official capacity unless they violate "clearly established" statutory laws or constitutional rights. The Court argued that because the discovery and trial process can be emotionally draining and financially overwhelming, the “clearly established” standard aims to ensure that government actors can do their jobs without the fear of frivolous lawsuits. Qualified immunity is not about preventing people from suing government actors, but rather, preventing lawsuits where a “clearly established” law or right violation has not been identified from proceeding for a full trial.
"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify himself or herself, even in these states.
Perez v. Sharp, also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v. Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Marvin Ray Baxter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California who served from January 1991 to January 5, 2015.
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of vague laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide "credible and reliable" identification.
Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance being declared unconstitutionally vague. The case was argued on December 8, 1971, and decided on February 24, 1972. The respondent was the city of Jacksonville, Florida.
Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, also known as Sami Al-Hussayen, is a teacher at a technical college in Riyadh. As a Ph.D. graduate student in computer science at the University of Idaho in the United States, he was arrested and charged in 2003 by the United States with running websites as a webmaster that were linked to organizations that support terrorism. Al-Hussayen is one of the few people at the time to have been charged under a provision that has been described as "overly broad and vague." He was also charged with immigration violations.
The San Diego Police Department (SDPD) is the primary law enforcement agency of San Diego, California. It was established on May 16, 1889. The department employs 1,731 officers and 601 civilian staff. It covers 343 square miles of service area with a population of over 1.4 million people. It is the second-largest municipal police department in California, after the Los Angeles Police Department.
Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.
Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a local city ordinance that made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and "annoy" any passersby was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services". The Court found the statute vague, meaning it was written in a manner that almost anyone could be convicted of the statute by engaging in most legal activities. However, the Court refused to void the statute as unconstitutionally vague. The Court decided to limit the application of the statute only to defendants who hold a fiduciary duty and they participate in bribery and kickback schemes. The Court supported its decision not to rule the statute void for vagueness on its obligation to construe and not condemn Congress' laws. Ultimately, Skilling's sentence was reduced by 10 years as a result.
Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.