Legal Opinion

State v. PUTZI

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 4, 2010No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0252PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. State v. TakacsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
  4. City of Baton Rouge v. RossSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1995
  5. State v. McLambCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro DelgadoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  2. State v. BurkeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  3. Franklin v. ClemettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
  4. Mahmoodi v. AdotCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
  5. State v. MeedsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API