IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Plaintiff, vs.

ACCUSATION

GREG D ALSPACH

Defendant

FILE NO: 97 D4025-2




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 complyrng 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 prohtbits. 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 Depadment 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 requimments 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

Back
| Home | Studies | States | Nation | Helmets | Press | Archives | Backfire | Shop | Contact |

© Copyright 2013 Sasnet Design. All Rights Reserved.