The Kolender v. Lawson case in 1982 revolved around the constitutionality of a California law that required individuals to provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by police officers. Edward Lawson, an African-American man, was stopped frequently by San Diego Police over two years and charged with violating this statute because he either refused or failed to present sufficient identification upon request. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lawson, finding the California law unconstitutionally vague as it gave excessive discretion to the police on whether ID provided was satisfactory or not. This lack of clear standards could potentially lead to arbitrary enforcement and infringements on citizens' rights under the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection under law). Therefore, this ruling emphasized that laws must be explicit enough for ordinary people to understand what behavior is considered illegal.

In the dissenting opinion for Kolender, Chief of Police of San Diego, et al. v. Lawson (1982), Justice White argued that the majority's decision to strike down a California law requiring individuals to provide "credible and reliable" identification when asked by police was misguided. He contended that such laws are necessary tools for law enforcement officers in their efforts to maintain public safety and prevent crime. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that this requirement was unconstitutionally vague; instead, he believed it provided clear guidance on what is expected from citizens during encounters with police officers - namely providing truthful information about one’s identity upon request. Therefore, according to Justice White’s dissenting opinion, there were no constitutional grounds for invalidating this statute as it did not infringe upon any fundamental rights or liberties.