INDIANA - The law in question is Indiana Code 7.1-5-1-3, which prohibits public intoxication.

OFF THE WIRE
INDIANA � The high court of Indiana has upheld the constitutionality of the vague law that criminalizes being �annoying� while intoxicated � a statute that an appellate court described as covering a �vast array of human behavior.�
The conviction was appealed on grounds that the law is overly vague. �Behavior that annoys some people will not annoy others,� Mr. Mogan's attorneys argued.
Morgan also raised the issue of whether �another person� should include police officers, because �the very nature of the profession, police officers are often annoyed in the situations they have to deal with.�

Indiana Deputy Attorney General George P. Sherman disagreed, arguing that anybody with �ordinary intelligence� should know what is annoying. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed.

The high court of Indiana has upheld the constitutionality of the vague law that criminalizes being �annoying� while intoxicated � a statute that an appellate court described as covering a �vast array of human behavior.�
The case stemmed from the arrest of 52-year-old Rodregus Morgan on August 31st, 2012. According to court records, Mr. Morgan had fallen asleep in a bus stop while waiting for his bus at 9:25 a.m. Below is the court�s official summary of the events that led to his arrest for public intoxication:

[IMPD Office Brycen] Garner tapped on Morgan�s shoulder and tried to wake him. Morgan raised his head and stated, �Get off of me.� (Tr. at 13.) Officer Garner again tapped Morgan and told him he needed to leave the bus shelter, and repeated this to Morgan again when he did not respond. Morgan seemed agitated to Officer Garner but he did comply and get up from the bench. When Morgan stood, Officer Garner noticed him swaying from side-to-side. Morgan�s eyes were bloodshot red and glassy, and Officer Garner smelled alcohol. At that time, Officer Garner placed Morgan under arrest for public intoxication because he believed him to be under the influence of alcohol and an annoyance.

�I wasn�t being annoying,� Mr. Morgan later reasoned. �I was waiting for the bus.�
The law in question is Indiana Code 7.1-5-1-3, which prohibits public intoxication. The law states that �it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person�s use of alcohol or a controlled substance� if the person� harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.�
The conviction was appealed on grounds that the law is overly vague.  �Behavior that annoys some people will not annoy others,� his attorney argued.
Morgan also raised the issue of whether �another person� should include police officers, because �the very nature of the profession, police officers are often annoyed in the situations they have to deal with.�
On February 13th, 2014, the the Indiana Court of Appeals threw out Morgan�s conviction for being an annoyance. It declared that the �annoys� portion of the law was impermissibly vague and covered a �vast array of human behavior,� making the law unconstitutional.
Indiana Deputy Attorney General George P. Sherman disagreed, arguing that anybody with �ordinary intelligence� should know what is annoying.
�A reasonable person would readily understand that it is annoying for a person to be passed out drunk in a public bus stop,� Mr. Sherman wrote in a March court brief.
The Indiana Supreme Court eventually took up the case, and ultimately agreed with the deputy attorney general.  On December 18th, 2014, the court issued a 5-0 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law.  Its reasoning included the following:

There is little doubt that the subjective application of the term �annoys� would lead to absurd results and exceedingly broad discretion in enforcement. However, recognizing that statutes need not precisely state the prohibited conduct and should be read to avoid absurd results, principles of statutory interpretation instruct this Court to read a reasonableness standard into our public intoxication statute when analyzing the term �annoys.�

Although the law was allowed to stand, Mr. Morgan�s conviction was vacated due to insufficient evidence.

READ MORE: Rodregus Morgan v. Indiana, No. 49S02-1405-CR-00325