ORDER OF COURT ON MOTION
The above and foregoing case coming
on before the Court on the Motion of the Defendant to
dismiss the charge because it is so vague and indefinite
that an ordinary citizen could not determine whether he
was violating the law or not; the state maintaining that
the statute in question is clear and unequivocal;
Defendant is charged with a violation of 4O-6-315 (a) of
the Official Code of Georgia, which states in pertinent
part; "no person shall operate or ride upon a
motorcycle unless he is wearing protective headgear which
complies with standards established by the Board of Public
Safety."
The evidence submitted by both
sides in brief and testimony fails to reveal any standard
which a person could be certain he was complying with the
law.
Vagueness of a criminal law rests
on a constitutional principle that procedural due process
requires fair notice and proper standards for
adjudication. Persons are not required at the peril of
life, liberty or loss of property to speculate concerning
a penal statute, but are entitled to know what it is that
the state commands or forbids by statute.
A person could not look at this
statute and be sure what was prohibited or required of
them in the judgment of this court, and this court finds
that the law as written is so vague and indefinite that a
person could not determine what the statute commands or
prohibits. It appears that the defendant was wearing a
baseball cap with a bill on it that affords protection
from the sun, and this could certainly constitute a form
of "protective headgear," and since the statute
does not command nor prohibit, nor set any standards
describing the "approved headgear" no one can
determine the meaning of the law nor its requirements for
compliance. Since it is clear that the Department of Pubic
Safety has formulated no standards as of this time, it is
futile to require a trial when it is evident the State
cannot support the requirements for prosecution. It
appears that the defendant in this case was wearing
"protective headgear" in the form of a baseball
cap, which arguably protects one from the sun, and which
gives him the right to challenge the constitutionality of
said statute since he was wearing "protective
headgear." Said case is hereby dismissed as the
statute on which it is based is too vague and indefinite
to be capable of prosecution or defense, because there
have been no standards established by the Department of
Public Safety.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of
June 1998
GENE REEVES, JR., Judge
STATE COURT by designation