Disorderly Conduct Case Study
Whether the city's disorderly conduct ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct.
The court struck down the disorderly conduct ordinance as applied, finding that it was unconstitutionally vague because it did not give fair notice of what conduct was prohibited. The court held that a disorderly conduct ordinance must be sufficiently specific to allow a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct is prohibited.
Disorderly conduct statutes and ordinances are frequently challenged as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. D.J. Rivera challenges disorderly conduct charges on constitutional grounds — arguing that the statute or ordinance is vague, overbroad, or as applied to the defendant's specific conduct, unconstitutional.
This case involves § 18.2-415 of the Virginia Code. For a full analysis of how this statute applies to your case, consult with D.J. Rivera.
D.J. Rivera applies the lessons of cases like this one to defend clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia. Free consultation available 24/7.
Get Your Free Consultation