State v. Putzi
Decision Date | 04 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0252.,2 CA-CR 2009-0252. |
Citation | 225 P.3d 1154 |
Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Roger PUTZI, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Michael G. Rankin, Tucson City Attorney By William F. Mills and Laura Brynwood, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellee.
Risner & Graham By Kenneth K. Graham, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant.
¶ 1 Roger Putzi appeals from a Pima County superior court order affirming his conviction and placement on twelve months' probation after a bench trial in Tucson City Court for urinating in public, in violation of Tucson City Code § 11-54.1 Putzi contends the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. We conclude the ordinance is constitutional and affirm Putzi's conviction.
¶ 2 One evening in July 2008, a Tucson police officer observed Putzi urinating in an alleyway behind a store and issued him a citation for violating City Ordinance § 11-54. Putzi maintained both in city court and again on appeal to the superior court that § 11-54 is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to him. After oral argument, the superior court found the ordinance constitutional and affirmed Putzi's conviction. Putzi appealed to this court. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-375(A), our jurisdiction extends only to a review of the ordinance's facial validity. See State v. McMahon, 201 Ariz. 548, ¶ 3, 38 P.3d 1213, 1215 (App.2002). Accordingly, we do not examine the public urination ordinance as applied to Putzi individually. See id.
¶ 3 Section 11-54 provides as follows: "It is unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate in a public place, or in any place exposed to public view, except an established lavatory or toilet." Putzi contends that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because the Tucson City Code does not define the terms "public place" and "exposed to public view." Relying generally on Golob v. Arizona Medical Board, 217 Ariz. 505, 176 P.3d 703 (App.2008), and quoting McMahon, he maintains that this ordinance is not sufficiently specific to provide a "person[] of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits'" and to prevent arbitrary enforcement. McMahon, 201 Ariz. 548, ¶ 7, 38 P.3d at 1216.
¶ 4 We review de novo the constitutionality of the ordinance. See State v. Poshka, 210 Ariz. 218, ¶ 3, 109 P.3d 113, 114 (App.2005). As the superior court pointed out in its detailed ruling, a party challenging a law's validity has "the burden of overcoming a strong presumption of constitutionality." State v. Zinsmeyer, 222 Ariz. 612, ¶ 35, 218 P.3d 1069, 1082 (App.2009). And due process does not require us to strike down an ordinance that was not "drafted with absolute precision'" or one that omits an "explicit definition" or is "susceptible to different interpretations." Id., quoting State v. Takacs, 169 Ariz. 392, 395, 819 P.2d 978, 981 (App. 1991); see also State v. Starsky, 106 Ariz. 329, 332, 475 P.2d 943, 946 (1970) ( ). So long as a law provides a person "of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited'" and "contain[s] explicit standards of application to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement," it is constitutional. Poshka, 210 Ariz. 218, ¶ 5, 109 P.3d at 115, quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).
¶ 5 To the extent Putzi challenges the facial validity of the ordinance,2 he argues the city council "clearly meant to provide a limitation on when urinating outside would be criminal," but did so vaguely, thereby inviting "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" because different officers might interpret the word "public" differently. We disagree, however, that the city council's failure to define this word would result in discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement. When the language is clear, an ordinance "is not rendered unconstitutionally vague because there is a theoretical potential for arbitrary enforcement" and "some assessment by a law enforcement officer" may be required. State v. McLamb, 188 Ariz. 1, 6, 932 P.2d 266, 271 (App.1996). Indeed, police officers are capable of properly assessing the difference between "private" and "public." See City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 654 So.2d 1311, 1339 (La.1995) (Calogero, C.J., concurring) (); see also Twilight Jones Lounge v. Showers, 732 P.2d 1230, 1231-32 (Colo.App.1986) ( ); Wisneski v. State, 169 Md.App. 527, 905 A.2d 385, 391-93, 398-99 (2006) (, )aff'd, 398 Md. 578, 921 A.2d 273 (2007).
¶ 6 Because § 11-54 conveys in sufficiently clear terms the prohibited conduct and standard for its enforcement, we conclude Putzi has failed to sustain his burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. See State v. Brown, 207 Ariz. 231, ¶ 15, 85 P.3d 109, 114 (App.2004). Accordingly, Putzi's facial challenge of the ordinance fails and his conviction is affirmed.
1. Putzi was also convicted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Delgado
...” lacks an “ ‘explicit definition,’ ” or is “ ‘susceptible to different interpretations.’ ” State v. Putzi, 223 Ariz. 578, ¶ 4, 225 P.3d 1154, 1155 (App.2010), quoting State v. Zinsmeyer, 222 Ariz. 612, ¶ 35, 218 P.3d 1069, 1082 (App.2009), overruled on other grounds by State v. Bonfiglio, ......
-
State v. Burke
...enforcement’ and ‘some assessment by a law enforcement officer’ may be required.” State v. Putzi,223 Ariz. 578, 579, ¶ 5, 225 P.3d 1154, 1155 (App.2010)(quoting McLamb,188 Ariz. at 6, 932 P.2d at 271). As we have previously noted, “[e]ven a clearly worded statute may be susceptible to selec......
-
State v. Meeds
...theoretical potential for arbitrary enforcement does not make it unconstitutionally vague. See State v. Putzi , 223 Ariz. 578, 580 ¶ 5, 225 P.3d 1154, 1156 (App. 2010) ; see also State v. McLamb , 188 Ariz. 1, 6, 932 P.2d 266, 271 (App. 1996) ("When the language is clear, [a] statute is not......
-
Franklin v. Clemett
...unconstitutionally vague even if it is susceptible to different interpretations. State v. Putzi , 223 Ariz. 578, 579, ¶ 4, 225 P.3d 1154, 1155 (App. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).¶28 State v. Coulter , 236 Ariz. 270, 273–74, 339 P.3d 653, 656–57 (App. 2014), illustrates these poi......