![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The Federal Constitution does not preclude a city from giving vague or ambiguous directions to officials who are authorized to make investigations and recommendations.
Appellee amusement center operator brought an action against appellant city seeking an injunction against enforcement of a licensing ordinance governing coin-operated amusement establishments. The district court held that the section directing the police chief to consider whether a license applicant had any connections with criminal elements was unconstitutionally vague, but upheld the 17-year-old age restriction. The appellate court declared both sections unconstitutional, and appellant sought review.
Was the ordinance directing the city's police chief to consider applicant's connection with criminal elements in licensing amusement establishments unconstitutionally vague?
The Court found that the directive to the police chief was not unconstitutionally vague as the U.S. Constitution did not preclude appellant from giving vague or ambiguous directions to officials authorized to make investigations and recommendations, and approval or disapproval of the application was not based on the existence of connections with criminal elements. With regard to the age requirement, the Court held that it was precluded from reviewing the appellate court's interpretation of the state Constitution, declined to decide the federal constitutional question, and remanded for clarification. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded.