The Reasoning of the Court

The reasoning for the court’s decision was based on precedence cases, such as Kolender v. Lawson, Smiley v. Kansas, and Smith v. Goguen. Three different views on the meaning and understanding of the statute, Kolender v. Lawson is a reference to California’s meaning of loitering, while Smiley v. Kansas deals with meaning of the statute, saying that it is up to the court to determine the meaning of the statute, giving room to misuse of the statute. Smith v. Goguen shows another example of the statute being vague and unconstitutional. In Kolender v. Lawson the focus seems to be on the ability to prove credible and reliable identification when requested by an officer “Carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." (Kolender v. Lawson, 1983) This may give example to the approach California has adopted to deal with loitering and is acceptable by the Supreme Court. Smiley v. Kansas focuses on the involvement of higher courts in a states definition of the law. “The power in the state court to determine the meaning of a state statute carries with it the power to prescribe its extent and limitations, as well as the method by which they shall be determined.” (Smiley v. Kansas, 1905) The state felt it understanding and method of dealing with violators was valid and shouldn’t be challenge by a higher court, meaning the Supreme Court. Smith v. Goguen shows how misuse of a statute and how vagueness violates amendment 14, due process “The challenged statutory language, which had received no narrowing state court interpretation, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” ( Smith v. Goguen, 1974) General order 92-4 made by Chicago was wrong and enforceable in the Supreme Court’s opinion and honored The State Supreme Court, appealing latter cases.