221 Cal. App. 4th 1070
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Perdue, a violent felon, was convicted of possessing body armor in violation of former § 12370(a).
- A vest found in his car was identified as body armor by an expert and linked to the statute's scope.
- Title 11 regulations defined body armor by certification standards; the pre-2010 § 12370(a) referenced these standards.
- In 2010, § 12370(a) was amended to define body armor without Regulation 942 reference; current law continues the 11 Cal. Regs. definitions in later sections.
- The issue was reviewed as a vagueness challenge under due process, focusing on fair notice and enforcement standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether former § 12370(a) is void for vagueness as applied to Perdue | Perdue asserts no fair notice under vagueness doctrine. | Legislation provided fair warning and standard for enforcement. | Not void for vagueness as applied. |
| Whether the fair notice requirement is satisfied for former § 12370(a) | Statute relies on complex regulatory definitions beyond lay understanding. | Knowledge of conviction and possession suffices for fair notice. | Fair notice satisfied; ordinary person should know possession of vest risks criminal liability. |
| Whether § 12370(a) provides a workable standard for police enforcement and guilt ascertainment | Enforcement depends on expert determination of body armor suitability. | Officers need only probable cause that a violent felon possesses body armor. | Standard for enforcement is adequate; arrest can proceed with probable cause given possession by a violent felon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burg v. Municipal Court, 35 Cal.3d 257 (Cal. 1983) (due process requires definite standards for conduct and enforcement; fair notice not undermined by scientific measurement)
- People v. Chapple, 138 Cal.App.4th 540 (Cal. App. 2d 2006) (expert determination required to classify body armor under former § 12370(a))
- Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1988) ( vagueness challenges require applicable case-specific analysis; not hypothetical)
- Williams v. Garcetti, 5 Cal.4th 561 (Cal. 1993) (statutes must be sufficiently definite to provide conduct standards and enforcement standards)
- Boyce Motor Lines v. U.S., 342 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1952) (fair notice can overcome vagueness where conduct is clearly proscribed)