United States v. Louis Agront, Sr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22058
9th Cir.2014Background
- In Sept. 2011 Louis Agront visited the VA hospital in Palo Alto; after an initial visit he left and later returned with family, who were concerned about his behavior.
- Inside the lobby and later in the parking lot Agront became agitated, pacing and speaking rapidly; he and his son loudly argued, pushed and shoved, audible inside the hospital ~25 yards away.
- VA staff (a nurse and a social worker) called VA police and left their regular duties to monitor the situation; officers arrived, ordered people to step back, and arrested Agront after he refused commands and continued yelling.
- Agront was charged under 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(b)(11) for "disorderly conduct which creates loud, boisterous, and unusual noise" on VA property; he was convicted by a magistrate judge and sentenced to probation and a fine.
- Agront appealed, arguing an as-applied vagueness challenge (Due Process) because the regulation lacked a controlling standard and was enforced arbitrarily; he also challenged sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Agront's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1.218 is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Regulation lacks a controlling standard; enforcement here was arbitrary so vagueness doctrine applies | Regulation is sufficiently definite on its face; officer discretion in citation was proper | Regulation read to require disturbance of the normal operation of a VA facility is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Agront |
| Proper interpretation of the phrase "loud, boisterous, and unusual noise" | Should require tending to disturb routine operations of VA hospital (controlling standard) | No separate controlling standard necessary; phrase is clear in context | Court adopts controlling standard: noise that would tend to disturb the normal operation of a VA facility |
| Whether prosecution encouraged arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement | Citing Agront but not his son or another loud patient shows discriminatory enforcement | Officer reasonably exercised discretion based on observations; citation decision is enforcement discretion | No showing of constitutionally impermissible arbitrary enforcement; discretion here permissible |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction | Evidence did not show disturbance of normal hospital operation | Yelling audible 25 yards away and diversion of staff duties showed actual disturbance | Evidence was sufficient — a rational trier of fact could find disturbance of normal operation |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (court accepts contextual measure of disturbance in school setting as analogous)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (distinguishing vagueness tests when First Amendment is implicated)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (void-for-vagueness standard requires showing statute authorizes or encourages discriminatory enforcement)
- United States v. White Eagle, 721 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for vagueness and sufficiency)
- United States v. Naghani, 361 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir.) (as-applied vagueness analysis and reasonable construction of statute)
- United States v. Szabo, 760 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.) (upholding § 1.218 application to loud, threatening conduct in VA context)
- United States v. Elias, 269 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir.) (review standards referenced)
- United States v. Tello, 600 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)