Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville

Eight defendants were involved in this case. Each had been convicted of violating a Jacksonville, Florida, vagrancy ordinance that criminalized vagrancy, loitering, and related activity.Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses. Class D offenses at the time of these arrests and convictions were punishable by 90 days' imprisonment, a $500 fine, or both. Papachristou and Calloway were white women. Melton and Johnson were black men. At the time of their early Sunday morning arrest, they were driving in Calloway's car in Jacksonville. The morning they were arrested, however, there had been no evidence of breaking and entering. A fifth defendant, Jimmy Lee Smith, was charged with being a "vagabond" under the vagrancy ordinance. When he started to back out of the driveway, the officers told him to stop and get out of his car. == Procedural history ==

Jacksonville Municipal Court convictions Each of the eight defendants in this case was first convicted in the Jacksonville, Florida, Municipal Court for violating Jacksonville's vagrancy ordinance. Circuit Court decisions The municipal court convictions were then affirmed at the state trial court level. The appellate court held that the trial court had not exceeded its authority or failed to uphold the law when it affirmed the defendants' municipal court convictions. Rather, the court explained that the trial court had properly followed existing Florida state law at that time, given that in a previous case, Johnson v. State, the Florida Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of a statute similar to the vagrancy ordinance at issue. ==Decision==

Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the court. Holding The Supreme Court held that Jacksonville's vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. Reasoning The vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally "void for vagueness" for two reasons. First, it failed to provide fair notice to individuals about what conduct was forbidden by the law. Similarly, the ordinance labeled as vagrants men who were "able to work but habitually liv[e] upon the earnings of their wives or minor children." The Court reasoned that this would encompass both men who were unemployed due to a recession or structural employment, as well as men who had married rich women. Far from being criminal, the Court stated, wandering about with no purpose is an activity that is "historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them," and has even been extolled by the likes of Walt Whitman, Vachel Lindsay, and Henry Thoreau. The Court held that such an activity is not only inherently innocent but also constitutionally protected. Arbitrary arrests The Court held that the vagrancy ordinance was also unconstitutionally vague because it gave too much arbitrary power to the police. ("Another aspect of the ordinance's vagueness appears when we focus, not on the lack of notice given a potential offender, but on the effect of the unfettered discretion it places in the hands of the Jacksonville police.") The Court pointed to the dangers inherent in such a law, which could offer a pretense for a bad-faith arrest and which "permits and encourages an arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law." The Court acknowledged that poor people and minorities would often be the ones implicated by this kind of imprecise law, rendering the equal and even-handed administration of justice impossible. The Court also rejected the City's argument that the vagrancy ordinance allowed them to "nip crime in the bud" as "too extravagant to deserve extended treatment." == Impact ==

"Loitering-plus" laws Papachristou did not strike down loitering and vagrancy laws altogether. Rather, by declaring Jacksonville's ordinance unconstitutionally vague, the decision imposed clarity requirements on future laws of this type. It also strongly suggested that criminalization of "mere" loitering or vagrancy would be unconstitutional. Thus, in response to Papachristou, many local governments amended their loitering and vagrancy laws in an attempt to make them constitutional. Cities no longer prohibited simply loitering or wandering around but instead enacted so-called "loitering-plus" laws that imposed additional elements. For example, some loitering-plus laws require one or more of the following: that the individual lack an apparent or sufficient purpose for loitering, that the individual fails to give a satisfactory explanation for loitering, that the individual fails to obey a police order to disperse, that the individual obstructs others from passing, and/or that the individual constitutes a threat to public safety. The ACLU brought the case on behalf of 66 defendants who were arrested and prosecuted under the ordinance. The ordinance at issue in that case, entitled the Gang Congregation Ordinance, forbade "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places, defined as "remain[ing] in any one place with no apparent purpose." Under the ordinance, a police officer who observed someone whom he or she reasonably believed to be a gang member loitering with one or more other people could order them to disperse. Anyone who did not obey would be considered in violation of the ordinance and subject to arrest. A plurality of the Supreme Court declared the Chicago ordinance unconstitutionally vague for similar reasons as had doomed the Jacksonville ordinance. Papachristou has been cited in over 1,500 opinions since 1972. == See also ==