Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 51
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Early morning at an IndyGo bus shelter: Officer Garner (an IMPD officer working part-time) found Morgan asleep; upon waking Morgan smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, and was unsteady.
- Officer Garner repeatedly asked Morgan to leave; Morgan was agitated, loud, and refused initially; Officer Garner arrested him for public intoxication and later charged Morgan with disorderly conduct for continuing to yell after arrest.
- Charges filed: intimidation (later dismissed by court), public intoxication (I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3), and disorderly conduct (I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)). Bench trial resulted in convictions for public intoxication and disorderly conduct; Morgan appealed.
- Morgan argued the public intoxication statute is unconstitutionally vague because it criminalizes conduct that "annoys" without objective standards; he also argued insufficient evidence for disorderly conduct, claiming his speech was protected.
- Trial court denied suppression and convicted; on appeal the court considered (1) vagueness of the statute’s "annoys" ground and (2) whether evidence supported the disorderly conduct conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morgan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public intoxication provision criminalizing conduct that "harasses, annoys, or alarms" is unconstitutionally vague | The statute gives fair notice; a reasonable person knows intoxicated annoyance in public is prohibited (e.g., refusing to leave a bus shelter while drunk) | "Annoys" is undefined and subjective, enabling arbitrary enforcement and failing to give ordinary people notice | "Annoys" is unconstitutionally vague and severed from the statute; remainder of statute stands |
| Whether evidence supports disorderly conduct conviction for making unreasonable noise after being warned to stop | Officer observed repeated loud, agitated yelling and threats after warnings; conduct was not political speech and amounted to an abuse of speech rights | Morgan claimed his criticism of the arrest was protected political speech | Evidence was sufficient: speech was not political and, after warnings, constituted disorderly conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971) (ordinance criminalizing conduct "annoying to persons passing by" is unconstitutionally vague)
- Kinney v. State, 404 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (harassment statute upheld where specific intent element constrains vagueness)
- Lutz v. City of Indianapolis, 820 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (noise ordinance using "annoys" language held vague for lacking objective standard or warning requirement)
- Price v. State, 911 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (vagueness challenges examined against facts; reasonableness standards can salvage statutes)
- Gaines v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (criminal statutes require sufficiently objective measurements to provide notice and limit arbitrary enforcement)