Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See 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
First Amendment Certiorari - Arizona Harassment statute unconstitutional

First Amendment Certiorari - Arizona Harassment statute unconstitutional

Ratings: (0)|Views: 30|Likes:
Published by Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio
Rev. 3
Rev. 3

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Sheriff_Joe_Arpaio on Oct 23, 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

12/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
No
.
 
13
-
 
I
 N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 ———— 
 
SCOTT HUMINSKI,for himself and those similarly situated
,
 
 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, AZRev. Stat. § 13-2921 (hereinafter referred to as,
13-2921
) as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.The Ninth Circuit rejected Huminski
s assertion that 13-2921 improperly targets expression protected under theFirst Amendment with criminal sanctions.
1.
 
Is 13-2921 unconstitutionally vague and overbroad?2.
 
Does 13-2921 improperly target constitutionallyprotected expression with criminal liability in violationof the First Amendment?
PARTIES
TO THE
PROCEEDING
 The
 parties to this proceeding are Scott Huminski
 
(hereinafter referred
t
o as
Huminski
 
or 
P
et
i
t
i
on
er 
) andthe City of Surprise, Arizona and the City of Surprise
semployees and police department
(hereinafter referred to
a
s the
Surprise Defendants
)
 
 
 
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 f 
or 
the Ninth Circuit
.
 
OPINIONS
B
E
L
OW
 
The Court of Appeals decision for which review is soughtis non-published and affirmed the District Court
s denial of 
Huminski’s
motion to preliminarily enjoin the enforcementof 13-2921 and his motion for partial summary judgmentrequesting a declaration that 13-2921 is unconstitutional.
 
J
U
IS
D
ICTIO
N
 
This matter arose as an appeal of a final order denying a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of 13-2921 and denying a requested declaration that 13-2921 isunconstitutional on its face. Huminski timely filed amotion for rehearing
en banc
on August 23, 2013 whichwas 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 isat odds with the First Amendment and Due Process. U.S.Const., Amend. I, XIV Furthermore, 13-2921criminalizes and, thus chills expression protected under the First Amendment.
STATEMENT
OF THE
CAS
E
 
Huminski, formerly a resident of Arizona, was subjectto a communication from the City of Surprise PoliceDepartment to not have contact with two persons pursuantto 13-2921. Huminski filed suit against the SurpriseDefendants and requested injunctive and declaratory relief concerning 13-2921. The District Court denied the relief requested concerning 13-2921 and the Ninth Circuitaffirmed.
 
Compounding the unconstitutional plain language of 13-2921 is the fact that the police communication invoking13-2921 occurred the day before a civil hearing where

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)//-->