Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; July 8, 2004; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Timothy McDermott appealed a superior court ruling affirming that Arizona Revised Statutes A.R.S. 13-3102(F) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to A.R.S. 13-3102(A)(1). The primary issue was whether 'luggage' in A.R.S. 13-3102(F) includes a 'fanny pack.' McDermott was stopped for speeding, and a handgun was discovered in his fanny pack, leading to charges of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. He argued that his fanny pack qualified as luggage under the statute, or alternatively, that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The municipal court initially ruled that a fanny pack is not luggage and that the statute is vague. However, the superior court agreed on the first point but reversed the vagueness ruling. McDermott contended that the luggage exception should include fanny packs or that the statute fails to provide adequate notice of unlawful conduct, permitting arbitrary enforcement. The appellate court noted it would review the statute's facial validity, emphasizing the legislature's intent in statutory interpretation and the clarity of the statutory language. The court distinguished the definitions of 'case' and 'pack' in the context of the statute, concluding that the legislature did not consider a fanny pack to be a 'case' and affirming the superior court's ruling. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The legislative intent of A.R.S. 13-3102(F) is clarified by the wording in its sentences: 'luggage' appears in both the first and second sentences, while 'pack' is mentioned only in the latter. This distinction indicates that the legislature intended to exclude 'packs' from the definition of 'luggage' in relation to carrying concealed weapons. The principle 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' supports this interpretation, as the omission of 'pack' from the first sentence suggests it does not qualify for the same exemptions as 'luggage.' The legislature's choice to separate 'packs' and 'luggage' implies an intention to prohibit concealed weapons carried in packs, including fanny packs. Previous rulings, such as in Moerman, reinforce that fanny packs do not fall under the definition of 'luggage,' and the legislature's subsequent amendments have not contradicted this interpretation. McDermott has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute due to facing prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Challenges to a statute's vagueness are reviewed de novo, with the presumption of constitutionality. A statute is not deemed void for vagueness if it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct to a reasonable person, ensuring that it is not subject to arbitrary enforcement. The burden of proof lies with the party contesting the statute's validity.
A statute is not considered void for vagueness solely due to the absence of explicit definitions or multiple interpretations of terms. The legal standard requires only that a statute provides fair and definite warning, not perfect notice or absolute clarity. In the case discussed, the term "luggage" was found to be sufficiently clear, as the legislature clarified that it does not include fanny packs. The statute has exceptions for weapons concealed in luggage and packs, allowing a person of ordinary intelligence to differentiate between prohibited behaviors. Additionally, the language minimizes the risk of arbitrary enforcement, as it provides clear guidelines for both offenders and law enforcement. The expectation is that public officials will act fairly and impartially. Consequently, the superior court's decision to reverse the municipal court's dismissal order was affirmed, allowing for further proceedings.
