Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari - Rev 1

U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari - Rev 1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio
More, the government just does not want to let go of a patently unconstitutional statute.

More, the government just does not want to let go of a patently unconstitutional statute.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio on Oct 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No
.
 
13
-
 
I
 N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 ———— 
 
SCOTT HUMINSKI
,
 
 P 
et 
i
i
o
n
er 
,
 
v.
 
CITY OF SURPRISE, ARIZONA, Et Al.,
 
 R
espo
nd 
en
ts
.
 
 ———— 
 
On
Petition
for a
Writ
of 
Certiorari to
the
 
United States Court
of 
A
pp
e
a
l
s
for
the Ninth
C
ir
c
u
it
 
 ———— 
 
PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF
C
ER 
TIO
A
I
 
 ——— 
 
Scott Huminski24544 Kingfish StreetBonita Springs, FL 34134(239) 300-6656s_huminski@live.com
 Pet 
i
i
o
n
er 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS
P
RE
S
E
NT
E
D
 
The Ninth Circuit rejected Scott Huminski
s facialchallenge to the Arizona criminal harassment Statute,AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 (hereinafter referred to as,
 13-2921
) as unconstitutionally vague and overbroadand that 13-2921 improperly targets expression protected under the First Amendment.
1.
 
Is 13-2921 unconstitutionally vague andoverbroad?2.
 
Does 13-2921 improperly target constitutionallyprotected expression with criminal liability inviolation of the First Amendment?
PARTIES
TO THE
PROCEEDING
 The
 parties to this proceeding are ScottHuminski
 
(hereinafter referred
t
o as
Huminski
 
or 
P
et
i
t
i
on
er 
) and the City of Surprise, Arizona andthe City of Surprise
s employees and policedepartment
(hereinafter referred to
a
s the
SurpriseDefendants
)
 
 
 
PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF
C
ER 
TIO
A
I
 
 ———— 
 
Huminski petitions
for a
writ
of 
certiorari to review
t
h
e
 judgment
of 
the United States Court
of 
Appeals
or 
the Ninth Circuit
.
 
OPINIONS
B
E
L
OW
 The
Court
of 
Appeals decision for which review
i
s
sought
is non-published and rejected Huminski
s
motion to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of 13-2921 and his motion for partial summary judgment requesting a declaration that 13-2921 isunconstitutional.
J
U
IS
D
ICTIO
N
 
This matter arose as an appeal of a final order denying a preliminary injunction against theenforcement of 13-2921 and denying a declarationthat 13-2921 is unconstitutional on its face.Huminski filed a motion for rehearing
en banc
onAugust 23, 2013 which was denied on October 21,2013 by the Ninth Circuit. Jurisdiction is proper  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254.
 
STATUTORY PROVISION
I
NVOL
V
E
D
 
The vague and overbroad plain language of 13-2921 is at odds with the First Amendment and DueProcess. U.S. Const., Amend. I, XIV Furthermore,13-2921 criminalizes and, thus chills, expression protected under the First Amendment.
STATEMENT
OF THE
CAS
E
 
Huminski, formerly a resident of Arizona, wassubject to a communication from the City of SurprisePolice Department to not have contact with an two persons pursuant to 13-2921. Huminski filed suitagainst the Surprise Defendants and requestedinjunctive and declaratory relief concerning 13-2921.The District Court denied the relief requestedconcerning 13-2921 and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->