State v. PUTZI
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Roger Putzi appeals from a Pima County superior court order affirming his conviction and placement on twelve months’ probation after a bench trial in Tucson City Court for urinating in public, in violation of Tucson City Code § 11-54. 1 Putzi contends the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. We conclude the ordinance is constitutional and affirm Putzi’s conviction.
Factual and Procedural History
¶ 2 One evening in July 2008, a Tucson police officer observed Putzi urinating in an alleyway behind a store and issued him a citation for violating City Ordinance…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. TakacsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
- City of Baton Rouge v. RossSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1995
- State v. McLambCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro DelgadoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- State v. BurkeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Franklin v. ClemettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- Mahmoodi v. AdotCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
- State v. MeedsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018