State V Metzger (Brief)
Hassan
Chaalan
CRJ 251
P.Cravens
09/10/2013
CRJ 251
METZGER BRIEF
STATE V. METZGER
319 N.W.2d 459 (Neb. 1982)
FACTS: Defendant was seen naked with his arms at his sides from the thighs on up at his apartment window by another resident. Resident notified police on the act. The officers testified that they observed Metzger standing within a foot the window eating a bowl of cereal and that they also, seen that his body was nude from the mid-thigh on up. The defendant’s case was dismissed.
LEGAL ISSUE: Was the defendant violating the City of Lincoln ordinance code 9.52.100 which states “It shall be unlawful for any person within the City Of Lincoln to commit any indecent, immodest or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see the same”. Would another person passing also think that this incident is indecent, immodest or filthy? Does this act, under the City of Lincoln Ordinance code 9.52.100 satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process?
HOLDING: No. Case Dismissed
LEGAL REASONING: The issue presented in the appeal is whether the ordinance as written is so vague that it is unconstitutional. The ordinance makes it unlawful for anyone to commit any “indecent, immodest or filthy act. There is no way to know which standards required in a criminal act fall under these three terms. The fact that the ordinance includes the words “immodest” “indecent” and “filthy” makes it too broad because there are many immodest, indecent and filthy things that are not unlawful. Therefore it cannot satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: They key issue in this case was Metzger being seen at his window naked by a citizen. The issue was brought upon the court regarding a city ordinance which states that an act like this is illegal. The ordinance was too vague and too broad to charge Metzger with anything. Metzger’s case was reversed and
Chaalan
CRJ 251
P.Cravens
09/10/2013
CRJ 251
METZGER BRIEF
STATE V. METZGER
319 N.W.2d 459 (Neb. 1982)
FACTS: Defendant was seen naked with his arms at his sides from the thighs on up at his apartment window by another resident. Resident notified police on the act. The officers testified that they observed Metzger standing within a foot the window eating a bowl of cereal and that they also, seen that his body was nude from the mid-thigh on up. The defendant’s case was dismissed.
LEGAL ISSUE: Was the defendant violating the City of Lincoln ordinance code 9.52.100 which states “It shall be unlawful for any person within the City Of Lincoln to commit any indecent, immodest or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see the same”. Would another person passing also think that this incident is indecent, immodest or filthy? Does this act, under the City of Lincoln Ordinance code 9.52.100 satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process?
HOLDING: No. Case Dismissed
LEGAL REASONING: The issue presented in the appeal is whether the ordinance as written is so vague that it is unconstitutional. The ordinance makes it unlawful for anyone to commit any “indecent, immodest or filthy act. There is no way to know which standards required in a criminal act fall under these three terms. The fact that the ordinance includes the words “immodest” “indecent” and “filthy” makes it too broad because there are many immodest, indecent and filthy things that are not unlawful. Therefore it cannot satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: They key issue in this case was Metzger being seen at his window naked by a citizen. The issue was brought upon the court regarding a city ordinance which states that an act like this is illegal. The ordinance was too vague and too broad to charge Metzger with anything. Metzger’s case was reversed and