Timmons v. City of Montgomery
Decision Date | 30 September 1993 |
Docket Number | CR-91-1460 |
Citation | 641 So.2d 1263 |
Parties | Sarah Leslie TIMMONS v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leah O. Taylor and Ted Taylor, Prattville, for appellant.
Gunter Guy, Montgomery, for appellee.
Sarah Leslie Timmons was convicted of violating the Vehicle Tinted Window Statute, § 32-5-215(d), Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant was fined $56.00 plus court costs of $34.00.
I
The appellant contends that § 32-5-215(d), Code of Alabama 1975, the Vehicle Window Tinting Statute, is unconstitutionally vague, because, she argues, the statute does not specify the degree of tinting allowed or prohibited. The statute provides as follows:
"(d) No person shall operate a motor vehicle which has a windshield, sidewing or rear window which has tinting to the extent or manufactured in such a way that occupants of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through the sidewing or rear windows from outside the motor vehicle."
The court has said:
McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). See also State v. Gooden, 570 So.2d 865 (Ala.Crim.App.1990).
Kerr v. State, 474 So.2d 142, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Kerr, 474 So.2d 145 (Ala.1985).
192 Op.Att'y Gen. 85 (Informal opinion 83-00442, Aug. 17, 1983). As the attorney general recognized in his opinion, it is the duty of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of legislation. Parsons v. State, 251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209 (1948). This court concludes that § 32-5-215(d) is indeed unconstitutionally vague.
Following the attorney general's opinion, numerous attempts were made to amend the statute. All of these attempts were unsuccessful. In 1990, the Alabama Department of Public Safety, as authorized by § 32-2-9, Code of Alabama 1975, 1 proposed Rule 760-X-.17 to regulate the degree of window tinting. A legislative committee on administrative regulation review approved proposed Rule 760-X-.17, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The State argues that Rule 760-X-.17 cures any constitutional deficiencies of § 32-5-215(d). The appellant counters that Rule 760-X-.17 was an improper attempt to circumvent the legislative process. We must agree with the appellant.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lansdell v. State
...See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)."' "Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 ".... The judicial power to declare a statute void for vagueness `s......
-
Hicks v. State (Ex parte Hicks)
...See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).” '“Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). However,“ ‘ “ ‘[t]his prohibition against exce......
-
State v. K.E.L.
...See Kolender, supra ; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)." ’" Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So. 2d 684, 685 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). However," ‘ " ‘[t]his prohibition ag......
-
Powell v. State
...See Kolender, supra; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).” ' “ Timmons v. City of Montgomery, 641 So.2d 1263, 1264 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting McCorkle v. State, 446 So.2d 684, 685 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). However, “ ‘ “ ‘[t]his prohibition against e......