Kolender v. Lawson - Significance, Impact
William Kolender, et al.
It is not a violation of constitutional due process rights to require that persons who loiter or wander on the streets account for their presence and provide a "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
A. Wells Petersen
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Mark D. Rosenbaum
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens
William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
2 May 1983
The California statute requiring persons to produce identification and explain their presence on the street is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
- Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940).
- Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87 (1965).
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
- Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).
- New York Times, May 3, 1983.
- Trosch, William. "The Third Generation of Loitering Laws Goes to Court: Do Laws that Criminalize `Loitering with the Intent to Sell Drugs' Pass Constitutional Muster?" North Carolina Law Review, January 1993.
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services - Significance, Further Readings
- Karcher v. Daggett - Significance, No Rationale For Deviation Found, Feldman Plan Found Flawed, Minority Opinion, Impact
- Kolender v. Lawson - Significance
- Kolender v. Lawson - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias