Metz v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Metz's convictions, holding that the loitering statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct at a correctional facility. Metz had entered a marked guard line, remained there after repeated orders to leave, and therefore had fair warning that his conduct was prohibited and officers had adequate enforcement standards. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing a proposed First Amendment jury instruction because the instruction did not account for the facility's nonpublic-forum status.