David, J.
Here, the relevant portion of Indiana’s public intoxication statute provides:
[I]t 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:
* * * *
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4) (Supp. 2014) (effective 2012). [Footnote omitted.]
Morgan has specifically challenged the term “annoys” as unconstitutionally vague. Morgan argues that annoys is not defined in the statute, and that term alone fails to provide the necessary warning or notice of the prohibited conduct that is required in a criminal statute. Furthermore, Morgan asserts that reasonable people disagree as to what behavior is annoying, which demonstrates that there is no objective way to apply this section of the statute.
We would have to agree with Morgan that “annoys,” standing alone, does appear to create a vagueness problem. However, principles of statutory construction and precedent dictate how this Court is to analyze statutory terms. When our precedent and principles of statutory interpretation are applied, we cannot agree with Morgan’s conclusion that the term “annoys” is unconstitutionally vague.
. . . .
In each of the cases discussed above, the courts have read into statutes standards of reasonableness. These statutes have continually been upheld based upon the understanding that a reasonable person standard provides enough notice of prohibited conduct and limitations upon discretionary enforcement to satisfy constitutional concerns. We acknowledge Morgan’s argument that “behavior that annoys some people will not annoy others. . . .” (Appellant’s Br. at 10) (relying on Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971)) (stating that “[c]onduct that annoys some people does not annoy others”). However, Indiana has historically recognized that the purpose of the public intoxication statute “is to protect the public from the annoyance and deleterious effects which may and do occur because of the presence of persons who are in an intoxicated condition,” State v. Sevier, 20 N.E. 245, 246-47 (Ind. 1889) (emphasis added), thus demonstrating the apparent suitability of the word “annoys” within the statute. Indiana courts have also explicitly accepted that an objective reasonableness standard “is used in many areas of the law as an appropriate determinant of liability and thus a guide to conduct,” and it also “provides a constraining and intelligible enforcement guideline for police and prosecutors.” Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 967 (Ind. 1993). [Footnote omitted.] Based upon the long-recognized purpose of this statute and our prior application of a reasonable person standard, we must conclude that the application of a reasonableness standard to the term “annoys” satisfies constitutional requirements.
Moreover, it seems highly likely that attempts to use other language to define the prohibited conduct would lead to the same vagueness issues that Morgan challenges. For example, annoy is defined as “to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts”; or “to harass especially by quick brief attacks.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annoy (last visited December 18, 2014). We are unconvinced that replacing “annoy” with “disturb” or “irritate” would resolve the vagueness challenge asserted by Morgan. Disturbing or irritating conduct can also be highly subjective, unless an objective reasonableness standard is required as the baseline for determining the prohibited conduct. As such, a reasonableness standard is not only the prescribed method of interpreting the public intoxication statute, but the practical interpretation.
Under this reading, Morgan was provided sufficient notice of the type of conduct that is prohibited, and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory enforcement will be authorized or encouraged. Accordingly, we uphold the constitutionality of Indiana’s public intoxication statute, Ind. Code § 7.1-5-1-3, by reading a reasonableness standard into “annoys.” 10 [10Although not an issue raised in this case, the same reasonableness standard would likely be applicable when interpreting the terms “harasses” and “alarms” that are also contained within the public intoxication statute.]
Rush, C.J., Dickson, Rucker, Massa, J.J., concur.