context: Because the Regulation clearly applies to Mclsaac's conduct, he cannot challenge it for facial vagueness.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 452 F.2d 489, 491
citation_a.parenthetical: police officer may not challenge vagueness of regulation prohibiting conduct "unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen" when his own conduct properly could have been subjected to departmental disciplinary action even in the absence of any such regulation
citation_a.sentence: See also Allen v. City of Greensboro, 452 F.2d 489, 491 (4th Cir. 1971) (police officer may not challenge vagueness of regulation prohibiting conduct “unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen” when his own conduct properly could have been subjected to departmental disciplinary action even in the absence of any such regulation).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 417 U.S. 733, 757
citation_b.parenthetical: "Since appellee could have had no reasonable doubt that his public statements . . . were both 'unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen,' and 'to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,' . . . his challenge to [those terms] as unconstitutionally vague . . . must fail"
citation_b.sentence: Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 757 (1974) (“Since appellee could have had no reasonable doubt that his public statements . . . were both ‘unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen,’ and ‘to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,’ . . . his challenge to [those terms] as unconstitutionally vague . . . must fail”).