# Fabio v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ETC.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 30, 1980 · 489 Pa. 309

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648734

## Case

- **Full name:** Nicholas FABIO, Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF the CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 489 Pa. 309; 414 A.2d 82; 9 A.L.R. 4th 600; 1980 Pa. LEXIS 617
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Eagen, Flaherty, Larsen, Manderino, Nix, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648734

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying strict scrutiny to hold that police department's investigation of a police officer's off-duty sexual relations with his wife’s eighteen-year-old sister did not violate the officer’s privacy rights

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I believe this record establishes sufficient grounds to justify appellant’s dismissal from the Philadelphia Police Department, and accordingly concur in the result of the majority.
Appellant first challenges the constitutionality of section 1.75 on vagueness grounds. The vagueness doctrine requires notice to the actor that certain conduct is proscribed and bars overbroad application. See Note, the Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67 (1960). We have always recognized that when interpreting this type of regulation we give the regulation meaning “by reference to the ‘common sense of the community’ and [the regulation’s] broad protective purposes.” Commonwealth v. Mack, 467 Pa. 613, 618 , 359 A.2d 770, 772 (1976). Here, appellant cannot argue that he believed his conduct would not be deeply objectionable to the community that employed him as a law enforcement officer. Thus, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this departmental regulation provides sufficient notice to appellant that his conduct would result in his dismissal. See also, Zeber Appeal, 398 Pa. 35 , 156 A.2d 821 (1959); Corle v. City of Oil City, 45 Pa.Cmwlth. 559 , 405 A.2d 1104 (1979).
*327 Nor may appellant contest the regulation on overbreadth grounds. Overbreadth analysis involves consideration of whether the precise language of the statute reaches constitutionally protected conduct. If “the statute contains an ascertainable standard which does not infringe upon protected first amendment rights,” the question of overbreadth “may be finally determined only with reference to the conduct of the person challenging the statute.” Commonwealth v. Mack, 467 Pa. 613, 617 , 359 A.2d 770, 772 (1976). See also, United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 , 95 S.Ct. 710 , 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975); Commonwealth v. Heinbaugh, 467 Pa. 1 , 354 A.2d 244 (1976). In my view, this regulation does not reach constitutionally protected conduct. Here, appellant’s conduct is at the core of “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer” and thus, appellant cannot claim that the provisions of the duty manual might be improperly applied in other circumstances. Accordingly, I agree that appellant was properly discharged from the Police Department six years ago in 1973.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648734. Public record. Not legal advice.