Balizer Ex Rel. Bazan v. Shaver

Citations: 481 P.2d 709; 82 N.M. 347Docket: 579

Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals; February 5, 1971; New Mexico; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Kenneth Balizer and Arthur Bazan, who challenge the constitutionality of a vagrancy ordinance in Albuquerque, New Mexico. They bring the action on their own behalf and for others similarly situated, with three causes of action: the first seeks a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is unconstitutional and requests injunctive relief against its enforcement; the second alleges false arrest against officer Hattaway; and the third alleges false arrest against officer Stucker and the City of Albuquerque. The ordinance defines vagrancy as being without lawful means of support or failing to seek employment actively, and includes loitering in various public spaces. 

The defendants, including the City and its officials, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the court granted. The plaintiffs assert they are U.S. citizens residing in Albuquerque, regularly present in public spaces, and both have been arrested under the ordinance—Bazan while conversing in a park and Balizer while walking on the university campus. Their charges were dismissed, but they claim to have suffered indignity, harassment, and unnecessary procedures such as booking and interrogation.

The ordinance in question is alleged to facilitate arrests based solely on suspicion, lacking probable cause. Preliminary issues arise regarding the classification of the proceedings as a class action and whether the complaint demonstrates an actual controversy justifying declaratory relief. The court does not address the class action aspect, as it finds a justiciable controversy exists for the named plaintiffs. If the complaint does not satisfy Rule 23 requirements, dismissal would only affect class relief claims. The defendants acknowledge the legitimacy of declaratory actions to challenge the constitutionality of municipal ordinances but argue that no actual controversy exists since both plaintiffs were acquitted of vagrancy charges. However, the court maintains that declaratory relief is warranted when plaintiffs face potential unconstitutional violations of personal rights. The plaintiffs assert that the ordinance threatens their rights under multiple amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The court agrees that the allegations reveal a genuine threat to constitutional rights, warranting a review of the ordinance's constitutionality. Additionally, the defendants argue for dismissal based on the discretionary nature of granting declaratory relief, but the trial court's dismissal was based on the failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court finds specific provisions of the ordinance (paragraphs B and E) unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad, defining vagrancy through the concept of "loitering."

The term "loiter" is defined as engaging in aimless or idle behavior that delays or interrupts activities, characterized by actions such as dawdling or lingering without purpose. In *Territory of Hawaii v. Anduha*, the court applied a similar definition while declaring a vagrancy statute unconstitutional, noting that it criminalizes behavior that reasonable individuals would not consider wrongful. Similarly, in *People v. Diaz*, the New York Court of Appeals found an ordinance against loitering unconstitutional because it lacked clarity, violating the principle that criminal statutes must be clear enough for individuals to understand what conduct is prohibited. The court emphasized that vague statutes fail to provide fair notice of prohibited actions, infringing on due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The *Goldman v. Knecht* ruling further highlighted that overly broad and vague laws violate constitutional standards by not clearly defining criminal behavior, thus allowing arbitrary enforcement. These judicial decisions collectively illustrate the constitutional imperatives that require clarity and precision in criminal legislation to ensure individuals understand what is legally permissible.

Anderson v. Shaver, 290 F. Supp. 920 (D.N.M. 1968), was acknowledged but deemed less persuasive than more recent rulings, leading to the conclusion that the ordinance in question is unconstitutional, referencing several cases including Arnold v. City and County of Denver, 464 P.2d 515 (1970), and others. The motion to dismiss was granted for the second and third causes of action, which claimed wrongful arrests without probable cause, violating constitutional rights, with specific details of the incidents provided. The court confirmed the sufficiency of the complaints under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that a false arrest can be the basis for a damages suit and that the plaintiffs adequately stated claims for relief. However, no claim for relief was established against the City of Albuquerque in the third cause of action, resulting in the correct dismissal by the trial court. The trial court's order was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, with Judges Wood and Hendley concurring.