LOUIS J. CECI, J.
This case is before the court on petition to bypass the court of appeals, pursuant to sec. 808.05, Stats. The issue presented concerns the constitutionality of Milwaukee's curfew ordinance, Milwaukee Code of Ordinances, sec. 106-23. We find the ordinance constitutional and, therefore, affirm the order of the trial court.
This case arose from citations issued by the Milwaukee Police Department on January 4, 1986, to approximately 95 youths who were attending a dance sponsored by the University of Wisconsin Black Student Union for the purpose of promoting higher education. The dance was held at the War Memorial Center in Milwaukee. In addition to approximately 400 youths, several adults were present at the dance, including those overseeing the event and operating equipment, security personnel, and police officers.
One of the Milwaukee police officers who was involved in the enforcement of the ordinance at the dance was a member of the gang squad and testified that he had learned that a gang confrontation which had occurred in another part of the city on January 4, 1986, involving the display of weapons, was to be continued at the War Memorial Center that evening.
The police returned to the War Memorial Center at about 10:00 p.m. after receiving several complaints of vehicle thefts in the area which, according to the police officer, suggested the presence of gangs. At that time, the officer advised one of the individuals in charge of the dance of the curfew ordinance and requested that an announcement be made that youths under age 17 leave the premises by the 11:00 p.m. curfew time. The parties stipulated that the announcement was made pursuant to this instruction. The officers then departed, but returned shortly after 11:00 p.m., at which time they were summoned by a security guard due to an incident involving the vandalization of vending machines at the War Memorial Center. In the course of investigating this incident, the police discovered graffiti associated with certain gangs.
Subsequently, the police officers entered the dance hall and observed about 400 people in attendance, 70 of whom were estimated to be under the age of 17, including some youths believed to be 11 or 12 years old. The officer advised a supervisor of the dance that because there appeared to be individuals under the age of 17, unaccompanied by a parent or adult, in attendance at the dance after the 11:00 p.m. Milwaukee curfew time, the dance was to be shut down.
When the dance was terminated, individuals who appeared to be under the age of 17 were stopped and questioned. Those who were under the age of 17 were arrested and taken to the police administration building.
The appellants, K.F. and D.A., were at the dance and were issued citations for violation of the Milwaukee curfew ordinance. K.F. was 15 years old, and D.A. was 16 years old at that time. The appellants pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial. Appellants filed motions to dismiss the charges, challenging the constitutionality of the curfew ordinance on the basis that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The trial court issued a decision on November 25, 1986, denying the motion to dismiss and finding the ordinance constitutional. The appellants waived their right to a jury trial, and a trial before the court was held. The trial judge rendered a decision, finding the appellants guilty of violating the curfew ordinance. Suspended sentences were ordered for both appellants. A written order finding K.F. and D.A. guilty of violation of the
The text of the challenged Milwaukee ordinance is as follows:
We first address the appellants' vagueness challenge. The concept of vagueness may be generically described as resting on the "constitutional principle that procedural due process requires fair notice and proper standards for adjudication." State ex rel. Hennekens v. City of River Falls Police & Fire Commission, 124 Wis.2d 413, 420, 369 N.W.2d 670, reconsideration
Prior to embarking upon an analysis of the ordinance upon vagueness grounds, this court must first determine whether the appellants' conduct is clearly proscribed by the ordinance because "a plaintiff whose conduct is clearly proscribed by the statute
At the time the ordinance citations were issued, the youths were under 17 years old and were attending a dance with at least 90 other juveniles at the War Memorial Center in Milwaukee. Whatever possible ambiguities might be hypothetically constructed as to the application of the term "congregate" as used in the ordinance, a function in which such a large number of youths is assembled unequivocally constitutes a "congregation."
It is equally certain that the War Memorial Center falls within the definition of a "public building" within the terms of the ordinance. As explained by the executive director of the War Memorial Center by testimony during trial, the War Memorial Center is "a public building" by "any definition." The public nature of the War Memorial Center is made abundantly apparent both by the terms of the agreement between the Milwaukee County War Memorial Center, Inc. and the County of Milwaukee executed for the
The War Memorial Center is used "in part," if not exclusively, for "assemblage" by the public. Thus, it must be beyond dispute that the War Memorial Center is a public building by statutory definition and, in fact, would be within any definition which could reasonably be ascribed to that term.
Finally, while some adults were present at the dance, their presence could not by any interpretation or contortion of the language of the ordinance be deemed to constitute "accompan[iment] by [a] parent, guardian or other adult person having ... care, custody or control" of the juveniles. Because the term
Our resolution of appellants' vagueness challenge is not dispositive of the question of overbreadth. A statute or ordinance may be entirely clear yet, in its unambiguous application, unjustifiably intrude upon constitutionally protected rights. We have explained the concept of overbreadth as follows:
As distinct from the doctrine of unconstitutional vagueness which draws its essence from procedural due process, overbreadth concerns substantive due process and is directed to "preventing the limiting, by indirection, of constitutional rights." Tronca, 84 Wis. 2d at 89.
As explained above, contrary to the analysis under a vagueness challenge, with respect to overbreadth a plaintiff may have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance even where his or her own conduct could constitutionally be regulated under a narrowly drawn law. State v. Princess Cinema of Milwaukee, Inc., 96 Wis.2d 646, 656, 292 N.W.2d 807 (1980); City of Milwaukee v. Wilson, 96 Wis.2d 11, 19, 291 N.W.2d 452 (1980). Accordingly, in asserting an overbreadth challenge an individual may hypothesize situations in which a statute or ordinance would unconstitutionally intrude upon the first amendment rights of third parties. Tronca, 84 Wis. 2d at 89. However, in analyzing the constitutionality of potential applications of a regulation, the court will not deem a statute or ordinance invalid because in some conceivable, but limited, circumstances the regulation might be improperly applied. In this regard, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Hill, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2508 (1987), is instructive:
See also Boos v. Barry, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 1168 (1988).
In support of the argument that the curfew ordinance is unconstitutionally broad, the appellants delineate several rights upon which the ordinance purportedly impinges. Specifically, appellants assert that the following rights are fundamental and are unconstitutionally intruded upon by the breadth of the curfew ordinance: freedom of movement and travel; freedom of association, assembly, speech, expression, and religion; and, finally, family autonomy.
It is apparent from the face of the curfew ordinance that the ordinance directly restricts the movement and associational rights of juveniles during the proscribed period of six hours and may indirectly or incidentally affect rights of expression and religion. This court has previously discussed the inherent right of freedom of movement:
Cf. Town of Vanden Broek v. Reitz, 53 Wis.2d 87, 191 N.W.2d 913 (1971), appeal dismissed 406 U.S. 902 (1972). This right to be free to move about within one's own state is inherent and distinct from the right to interstate travel protected by the commerce clause. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-30 (1969) (quoting Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 492 (1849)). See also Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164 (1972). See generallyJ. Nowak, R. Rotunda, J. Young, Constitutional Law, at 289-91 (2d ed. 1983).
Equally important as the right to freedom of movement are the first amendment rights of free speech and assembly. See U.S. Const. amend. I; Wis. Const. art. I, secs. 3 and 4. See generally Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis.2d 492, 504, 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987); State v. Zwicker, 41 Wis.2d 497, 509, 164 N.W.2d 512, appeal dismissed 396 U.S. 26 (1969); N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). Appellants argue that the broad language employed within the curfew ordinance precludes youths' attendance of events involving rights of assembly, speech and expression, including, for example, rallies, meetings, and other public events.
Additionally, to the extent that the ordinance might incidentally interfere with a juvenile's attendance
Finally, appellants argue that the ordinance unconstitutionally interferes with familial autonomy. Appellants are correct that the freedom of parents to rear their children according to their own system of beliefs is an interest of constitutional magnitude. See, e.g., Yoder, 406 U.S. at 232-33. See also Wynn v. Carey, 592 F.2d 1375, 1385-86 (7th Cir. 1978). That the state must not unnecessarily intrude into the family life has long been recognized:
The right to challenge invalid government intrusion upon constitutionally protected rights is not one which may only be asserted upon the attainment of any particular age. Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976). See, e.g., Zbaraz v. Hartigan, 763 F.2d 1532, 1536 (7th Cir. 1985), aff'd 108 S.Ct. 479 (1987), reh'g denied 108 S.Ct. 1064 (1988) ("The constitutional rights of minors do not receive lesser protection than the rights of adults."). However, it has become a well-recognized precept of constitutional law that a statute or ordinance which might be unconstitutional as applied to an adult might be constitutional as applied with respect to juveniles. See Prince, 321 U.S. at 167-70. This principle arises from a state's legitimate interest in the protection of the welfare of children. Id. at 165; Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 640. Recently, the United States Supreme Court again examined a question involving the first amendment rights of students. Although asserted in the context of a school environment and thus involving additional considerations, it is instructive to observe the Court's reaffirmation of the notion that while juveniles possess fundamental rights entitled to constitutional protection, they are not "`automatically coextensive with the rights of adults. . . .'" Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 108 S.Ct. 562, 567 (1988) (quoting Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)). See also Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 638.
The nature of the authority of the state to regulate juvenile conduct was succinctly expressed by Justice Brennan in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 692 (1977), as follows:
The rationale underlying the need for special sensitivity regarding the application of constitutional principles to children was explained in Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 634 (plurality), reh'g denied 444 U.S. 887 (1979), as a need to accommodate the following: "the peculiar vulnerability of children; their inability to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing." Significantly, the state's augmented authority over children has been recognized as most appropriately exercised with respect to activities carried out in public places where the dangers to the juvenile are the greatest. See Prince, 321 U.S. at 168.
Having reviewed the ordinance not only with respect to the particular activities as to which it was applied in the instant case, but also with respect to its hypothetical interference with other rights in different circumstances, we are convinced that given the greater authority of the state or municipality regarding the regulation of the activities of children, the ordinance is not overly broad. Moreover, while parental interests in rearing children without state or municipal interference may be impinged upon by the ordinance, we concur with the United States Supreme Court that where "[a]cting to guard the general interest in youth's well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent's control . . . ." Prince, 321 U.S. at 166. The state does indeed have "a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare . . . ." Id. at 167.
We are convinced that the interest of the municipality in the present case in protecting youths and curtailing juvenile crime is compelling and further are of the position that the ordinance, which restricts juvenile activity for only a narrow period of the day in "public" places, is drawn as narrowly as practicable. In this regard, it should be noted that juveniles accompanied by adults having care, custody, or control of the juveniles are free from the constraints of the curfew ordinance. Accordingly, because we find that the ordinance meets the strict scrutiny standard requiring a "compelling state interest," it is unnecessary to determine whether we would adopt the less
We note that the appellants' concerns regarding the enforcement of the ordinance in certain hypothetical contexts are founded upon an extremely liberal and, we posit, preposterous construction of the ordinance. The constitutionality of the ordinance must not be judged by lifting terms such as "stand" from the ordinance and, without regard to the purpose and context of the ordinance, suggesting hypothetical situations as to which the term, antiseptically defined, might apply. As explained in Boos, 108 S. Ct. at 1169, regulatory language should be interpreted in light of that "particular context" for which it is crafted. See also Grayned, 408 U.S. at 112. Furthermore, this court must interpret an ordinance, as it would a statute, to preserve its constitutionality. See, e.g., Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 405. See also Boos, 108 S. Ct. at 1168.
Finally, we have noted the cases of Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, 401 F.Supp. 1242 (M.D. Pa. 1975), aff'd 535 F.2d 1245 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 429 U.S. 964 (1976), and Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1981), relied upon respectively by respondent and appellants.
We likewise find the Milwaukee curfew ordinance to be supported by the compelling interest of the city in controlling the nighttime activities of youths in order to protect both youths and the community from juvenile crime. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
By the Court.—The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE (dissenting).
A properly drafted curfew ordinance is constitutional and will serve the societal protectionary purposes for which it is intended. The Milwaukee ordinance is not such an ordinance.
The ordinance in question purported to prohibit late night "loitering" by children. It, however, was
The issue in this case is not whether Milwaukee may have a juvenile curfew ordinance. It is rather obvious it may have, but that question is not at issue. The issue in this case is rather the degree of precision that such an ordinance requires. The correct result in this case would be to find this ordinance unconstitutional, as it surely is, and to allow the City of Milwaukee to draft, as it can, a better one.
The ordinance here is challenged on two grounds—vagueness and overbreadth. It fails both challenges. Even if I were to accept the majority's finding on the question of standing, the ordinance is vague for several reasons.
To begin with, as the majority correctly states, one test for vagueness is whether one "`bent on obedience'" to the law can discern what behavior is prohibited. At 33. In this case, however, it is clear that K.F. and D.A., the defendants here, could not discern what behavior was prohibited. This is because, as the facts of this case show, the ordinance does not give notice of the prohibited behavior.
According to the findings of the trial court, K.F. and D.A. have unblemished records. They come from responsible families, and there is not the slightest indication that they have ever been involved with any gangs or in any misconduct.
Given the educational purposes of the dance, it is reasonable to conclude that many juveniles with excellent backgrounds similar to K.F.'s and D.A.'s also chose to attend. Unfortunately, none of these juveniles could know that earlier that day, in a location over five miles distant from the War Memorial Center, police were called to investigate suspected gang activity and that, at that time, an unnamed citizen informer had led police to believe that there might be gang-related activities at this beneficial, educational dance. Relying in all probability on the sponsored and public nature of the dance, on its favorable location in a neighborhood not normally beset with gang activity, and on its beneficent purpose, the juveniles in this case went there, stayed at the dance past Milwaukee's 11:00 P.M. juvenile curfew, and ended the evening with a new acquisition—a juvenile record.
The test for vagueness is broader than that quoted by the majority. At 32-33. While it is true that the test is whether either one bent on obedience or a trier of fact could reasonably ascertain what the rule proscribes, this court has consistently also recognized another factor which must be considered, and that is the entity or agency charged with enforcing the rule. Thus, in City of Milwaukee v. Wilson, 96 Wis.2d 11, 16, 291 N.W.2d 452 (1980), this court stated:
Thus, under this standard, a question which the majority has left unanswered is whether one who wishes to "enforce or apply" the law is "relegated to creating their own standards of culpability instead of applying the standards prescribed in the law." Id. Recourse to the facts of this case demonstrates that the police here did, in fact, "create their own standards of culpability."
As the majority correctly states, the juveniles who were ultimately arrested were "congregating" at the War Memorial Center in downtown Milwaukee. At 35. As the majority also further correctly states, a police officer testified that "youths whose parents had arrived to pick them up at the War Memorial Center were permitted to leave without the issuance of citations...." At 30.
This means that some youths who were congregating were issued citations, while others, who were equally guilty of congregating, were not charged because, after they had been forcibly prevented by police seeking "gang members"
These facts are significant because of the heavy reliance placed in the opinion upon the term "accompany." According to the majority holding, the juveniles in the hall were not "accompanied" by adults, as required by the ordinance, because, although there were undisputably adults present, these adults were not those to whom the ordinance referred when it exempted from the reach of the ordinance those juveniles who are "accompanied" by an adult having their "care, custody and control." This is because, again according to the majority, the term "accompany" "unambiguously refers to individualized supervision." At 38.
Yet, according to the fact as laid out by the majority, juveniles whose parents "arrived" were allowed to leave without citations. These parents could not have been exercising "care, custody and control" if they did not even arrive on the scene until after the police did. Even if these parents were waiting outside, they could not have been exercising "care, custody and control" of an individualized nature
The law, according to the majority "unambiguously refers to individualized supervision," yet, despite this, because the police, and this court, have decided that those juveniles whose parents arrived after the fact of post-curfew-time congregation could go free despite no provision in the ordinance for such exceptions, it follows that the ordinance does not contain a "standard prescribed in the law." The standard being applied here is instead that of the police and this court's own standard of culpability. The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.
There is still another ground on which the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The majority, as stated above, places heavy reliance on the word "accompany" and cites Webster's Third New International Dictionary for the proposition that the word "unambiguously refers to individualized supervision." At 38. However, the standard for consulting the
In this regard, it is instructive to note that Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1940, defines "accompany" as: "[t]o go with, or be associated with, as a companion, an attendant, or a retinue; escort or convoy ..." Similarly, the just published Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Second Edition (1987), gives as the primary and secondary definitions: "1: to go along or in company with; to join in action; ... 2: to be or exist in association or company with." Unlike the definition quoted in the opinion, neither of these definitions compels any conclusion that the word at issue "unambiguously refers to individualized supervision." In fact, given such terms as "escort," "attendant," and such phrases as "to go along with," it is apparent that the word "accompany" has many more shades of meaning than a one-to-one relationship, and thus accepted dictionary definitions are themselves vague when applied in the context of this ordinance.
Given that this is so, it is further apparent that the ordinance is vague because it does not make clear what proportion of adults to juveniles there must be before the necessary ratio for "accompaniment" has been achieved. In this context, it becomes apparent that the ordinance, as applied to these individuals is unconstitutionally vague, because it is undisputed that there were many adults present at the dance, and a reasonable juvenile could well have believed that they were in the "accompaniment" of an adult and, hence, were under the exception for such accompaniment made by the ordinance. Such an impression was,
There is yet another ground on which the ordinance is vague. As the majority correctly notes, the ordinance prohibits congregation in a "public building." At 35. This raises the issue of whether the War Memorial Center qualifies for this appellation. There is no doubt that the War Memorial is a public building in the sense that the public may have access to it under certain circumstances, and it is a publicly owned municipal building. However, it is not as clear whether this makes it a "public building" when a private affair is being conducted there.
In this case, the executive director of the War Memorial Center testified that the regulations of the War Memorial Center do not allow public dances and that the dance was, in his opinion, as well as in the opinion of the dance organizers, a private one. Hence, the question is whether, even when rented for a private dance, the War Memorial retained its identity as a "public building" such that the reach of the ordinance extended to it.
Inasmuch as this is a question of law, the opinion of the director that the building is "`public' by `any definition'" (at 35) is neither helpful nor dispositive.
The point to be made with this example is that, because the ordinance does not undertake to define "public building," it must fall for vagueness. The fact that this court is divided on the issues of whether the War Memorial Center, when rented for a private dance, is a "public building" demonstrates that the language here is anything but unambiguous. The mere fact that this court is divided on this matter of law, makes clear that juveniles intent on conforming their behavior to the mandate of the law will be unable to do so. Thus, as in the case of what is meant by "accompany," the ordinance does not carry on its face or within it a "standard prescribed in the law." Wilson at 16. For this reason, also, the ordinance must fall for vagueness.
Basically, the majority here avoids meaningful discussion of vagueness inherent in this poorly worded statute by declaring that the appellants have no standing to raise the issue. I do not address the issue of whether the majority is correct or incorrect on this matter, but this court has the inherent power to review questions of great public importance even when the parties would not ordinarily have the standing to raise the issues. Town of Germantown v.
This ordinance prohibits such activities as "strolling," "wandering," and "standing." It is claimed by the city and the majority that these prohibitions do not extend to prohibit "walking" or "waiting for a bus." However, these self-generated contentions again demonstrate that the ordinance is vague. At what point does the prohibited "strolling" become the supposedly permissible "walking"? At what point does the supposedly permissible "waiting for a bus" become the impermissible "standing"? These questions again illustrate the vague nature of the ordinance, and demonstrate that one bent on compliance would not know how to conform his behavior, while those charged with enforcement are "relegated to creating their own standards" because no standard is "prescribed in the law." Wilson at 16.
Given the foregoing, the ordinance should fall for vagueness, and this is true whether one accepts the majority's holding on the juvenile's standing to challenge the ordinance for vagueness or not. Under any theory of standing, the ordinance must fall. However, vagueness is not the only flaw inherent and facially apparent in this ordinance. The statute also suffers from impermissible overbreadth.
As the majority correctly states, juveniles, like adults, have the right to freedom of movement and travel, as well as freedom of association, assembly, speech, expression and religion. At 40-43. However, as the majority also correctly states, in the case of juveniles, these rights are counterbalanced by the state's police power, as well as the state's parens patriae power. At
In this case, the majority declines to specify which is the appropriate level of scrutiny, but instead concludes that, even if the most stringent level of scrutiny is adopted—that the state's interests are examined to determine if these interests are "compelling," rather than merely "significant"—the ordinance here passes muster. At 46. Adopting the basic approach of the majority, I conclude that, even if the state's interest need only be "significant" rather than "compelling," the ordinance is unconstitutional.
As stated above, this ordinance is directed at preventing "loitering." The majority defines this as an intent to prevent "undirected or aimless activity of minors during the curfew hours." At 48. The parties agree, and this dissent agrees, that juvenile ordinances are designed to (1) reduce juvenile crime, (2) protect children from nocturnal dangers, and (3) reinforce parental authority. The quickest proof that this ordinance is overbroad is to recognize that the juveniles here were not engaged in loitering or other undirected or aimless activity. Instead, these juveniles were attending a dance with an indisputably beneficial and socially desirable educational purpose. Given that purpose, it is reasonable to say that the dance itself was designed to reduce juvenile crime, because a better educated populace is presumably one less attracted to crime by either need or inclination. Thus, the fact that the ordinance can reach these juveniles in an educational and socially desirable setting makes
An analysis of prior holdings also compels the conclusion that the ordinance here was overbroad. Two of the leading cases in this field which span the gamut of results, as well as the range of sophistication of ordinances at issue, are Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, 401 F.Supp. 1242 (M.D. Pa. 1975) and Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1981).
Bykofsky involved a juvenile ordinance which passed constitutional scrutiny. The ordinance there was narrowly drawn compared to the one at bar here. For example, that ordinance made specific exceptions for juveniles who were "exercising first amendment rights," "in a case of reasonable necessity," when "the minor is on the sidewalk [in front] of his residence," when "the minor carries a certified card of employment," when "the minor is returning home by a direct route from, and within thirty minutes of the termination of, a school activity or an activity of a religious or other voluntary association." Many of these exceptions, but not all, required that the minor have previously given notice to the mayor of his intention to utilize the specific exemption which applied to his situation.
In the face of an overbreadth challenge, the court upheld this ordinance as constitutional, with only such minor deletions as "normal nighttime activities," which phrases were considered too vague to gain court approval. The court reasoned that this ordinance was sufficiently specific to pass muster under the overbreadth challenge because it was not written so
The Milwaukee ordinance does not approach this degree of specificity. Nevertheless, in itself, this observation does not mean that, simply because the Milwaukee ordinance is not as specific as the one which passed muster in Bykofsky, the Milwaukee ordinance is overbroad.
The clearly dispositive case is Johnson v. City of Opelousas. In that case, the fifth circuit court of appeals held unconstitutional an ordinance which is remarkably similar to the Milwaukee ordinance. Milwaukee's ordinance and the Opelousas ordinance both forbade such activity as "traveling, loitering, wandering, strolling and playing." The parental exemption was for "parents, tutor or other responsible adult." Also as in Milwaukee's ordinance, the purposes asserted to underlie the Opelousas ordinance were the protection of youths from nighttime dangers, reducing nocturnal juvenile crime, and enforcing parental control and responsibility for their children. The court wrote:
The court then went on to explain that, because the statute simply cut off the juveniles' rights of free association, travel, and first amendment expression, the statute was overbroad and, hence, unconstitutional.
A comparison of Bykofsky's ordinance with that found in Opelousas, and a comparison of both of those ordinances with Milwaukee's, demonstrates that Milwaukee's ordinance is very similar to the Opelousas ordinance which was found unconstitutional, and very different from the Bykofsky ordinance which received approval. Thus, federal constitutional law, as well as simple logic, both dictate a holding that Milwaukee's ordinance is overbroad.
I conclude that the ordinance at issue here is unconstitutional, because it is both vague and overly broad. I dissent from the majority opinion.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON and JUSTICE WILLIAM A. BABLITCH join in this dissent.
". . .
But See Zbaraz, 763 F.2d at 1537 (applying compelling state interest standard).
As this court recently indicated in State v. Crowley, 143 Wis.2d 324, 342-44, 422 N.W.2d 847 (1988), because one statute embodies a similar nomenclature as another, it does not follow that the definition adopted in the context of one statute can or should be uncritically adopted in the context of the second statute. Thus, in Crowley we specifically rejected the argument that, because a man was not "handicapped" under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, secs. 111.31 to 111.395, Stats., he was not "disabled" for the purposes of a battery statute, sec. 940.19(3).
Similarly, in this case we should reject incorporation into the quasi-criminal or criminal setting presented here of the purely civil statute definition of "public building" contained in sec. 101.01(2)(g), which definition is intended to aid in regulating such matters as pilot lights on stoves, flushing devices for urinals, and smoke detectors, to name but a few. Because the purposes of the two laws are so completely different, the definitions in these very different contexts should be independently arrived at also.