Can city codes be void-for-vagueness?

Question

Accumulation of rubbish, trash, refuse, junk and other abandoned materials, metals, lumber or other things.

This is the Maumelle City Code - 38.2 (2)

When asked what needed to be changed to bring my yard into compliance I was never given an exhaustive list. Nor was accumulation defined (or a definition of abandoned).

Would (should) that law be considered void for vagueness? For instance - I have children who play in the yard and leave their toys in the yard. There is nothing abandoned about their toys as they're playing with them on a near-daily basis.

Answer 1

A city ordinance can be void for vagueness. This ordinance is not.

A city ordinance may be struck down as vague if it (1) "fails to establish standards for the police and public that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty;" or (2) "fails to give the ordinary citizen adequate notice of what is forbidden and what is permitted." Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 42 (1999).

Although any ordinance could be enforced arbitrarily, there's nothing in here that suggests it encourages any kind of arbitrary enforcement that would create a problem under the first prong, and the ordinance seems to be clear enough to put ordinary citizens on notice of what they need to do.

The fact that children leave toys in the yard seems likely to be irrelevant. As you said, the property isn't abandoned, so it isn't violating the law.

Nor is it likely to be relevant that the ordinance doesn't define "accumulation" or "abandoned." Both of those are words with ordinary meanings, so the ordinary person already knows what they mean.