So I’m doing a ton of research for PSLR and came across this sweet Florida statute that was “void for vagueness because it did not give fair notice of what conduct was forbidden and because it encouraged arbitrary and erratic arrests by the police.” (Lexis)
Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 26-57 provided at the time of these arrests and convictions as follows:
“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.”
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 158 (1972).
“Four of the defendants, an interracial group of friends, were arrested for “prowling by auto” while driving to a nightclub, one defendant was arrested as a “vagabond” while waiting for a ride, two were charged with “loitering” while walking on a sidewalk, one was arrested as a “common thief” after being ordered out of his car in his girlfriend’s driveway, and the last was charged with resisting arrest and “loitering” after being identified by a policeman as a generally opprobrious character.” (Lexis)
The opinion, authored by Justice Douglas, has some great quotes about the finer points of vagrancy:
Luis Munoz-Marin, former Governor of Puerto Rico, commented once that “loafing” was a national virtue in his Commonwealth and that it should be encouraged. It is, however, a crime in Jacksonville. . . .
“Persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children” — like habitually living “without visible means of support” — might implicate unemployed pillars of the community who have married rich wives. . . .
Persons “wandering or strolling” from place to place have been extolled by Walt Whitman and Vachel Lindsay. The qualification “without any lawful purpose or object” may be a trap for innocent acts. Persons “neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting . . . places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served” would literally embrace many members of golf clubs and city clubs.
Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be “casing” a place for a holdup. Letting one’s wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of no concern to the police. (Yes!).
Incoming search terms:
- papachristou v city of jacksonville
- papachristou v city of jacksonville case brief
- papachristou statute
No related posts.
