Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
State v. Miller
State v. Miller, 121 Or. App. 428 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1993-06-23
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM Defendant’s motion to strike the state’s brief is denied. On the merits, defendant raises a constitutional vagueness challenge directed at the traffic infraction of “failure to wear approved headgear.” ORS814.269; ORS815.050. Assuming, without deciding, that such a challenge is appropriate in a case not involving penal sanctions, we conclude that the laws cited by defendant are not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant’s concerns are best addressed to the legislature. Motion to strike state’s brief denied; otherwise affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Miller. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Defendant’s motion to strike the state’s brief is denied. On the merits, defendant raises a constitutional vagueness challenge directed at the traffic infraction of “failure to wear approved headgear.” ORS814.269; ORS815.050. Assuming, without deciding, that such a challenge is appropriate in a case not involving penal sanctions, we conclude that the laws cited by defendant are not unconstitutionally vague. Defendant’s concerns are best addressed to the legislature.
Motion to strike state’s brief denied; otherwise affirmed.