State Of Washington v. Samuel Lee Irwin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that geographic boundary condition requiring CCO to define locations where “children are known to congregate” leaves condition open to arbitrary enforcement and therefore renders it void for vagueness
• holding that the phrase \where children congregate\ is unconstitutionally vague
• concluding that a CCO could define a condition requiring the defendant to avoid locations where “ ‘children are known to congregate’ ” for the defendant to have sufficient notice of what conduct is proscribed, but it would leave the condition vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement
• holding as unconstitutionally vague a condition that read: ‘Do not frequent areas where minor children are known to congregate, as defined by the supervising [community custody officer].”
• striking condition barring defendant from “‘frequent[ing] areas where minor children are known to congregate, as defined by the’” supervising corrections officer, because without clarifying language or an illustrative list, condition was unconstitutionally vague
• condition reading “‘Do not frequent areas where minor children are known to congregate, as defined by the supervising [community custody officer]’” was unconstitutionally vague in the absence of clarifying language or an illustrative list of prohibited locations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).