Yes, this law is unconstitutional because it's way too vague. The Court explained that the law uses old, fuzzy words that make normal, everyday activities like taking a walk, hanging out, or even being unemployed seem like crimes. Because nobody can really tell what's illegal, the law gives police a giant 'net' to catch anyone they think looks 'undesirable.' This gives police too much power to arrest people, especially the poor and minorities, for no good reason, which is against the Constitution.

Yes, the Jacksonville law is unconstitutional because it doesn't clearly explain what people can't do. The law makes normal, innocent activities illegal without good definitions. This allows police to arrest people unfairly. When laws are unclear, they let police target people they don't like. The Constitution says laws have to be specific so normal people know what's against the rules and police can't abuse their power. The unclear, outdated language in this law doesn't give people notice, encourages unfair arrests, and gives police too much power. So it violates the Constitution.

—fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute

The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute must define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

—the United States Supreme Court struck down an archaic vagrancy ordinance because it was void for vagueness, and thus offended due process, and not because it was overbroad.

"Where, as here, there are no standards governing the exercise of the discretion granted by the ordinance, the scheme permits and encourages an arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law. It furnishes a convenient tool for `harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure.'*** It …

In striking down a statute which prohibited, inter alia, "wandering or strolling from place to place without any lawful purpose or object" the court commented cryptically: "The qualification `without any lawful purpose or object'may be a trap for innocent acts. "

It explained that walking, strolling, and wandering—even at night—are "historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them."

Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers are required to have probable cause before making an arrest.

The principle consistently followed is that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

We have expressly identified this "right to remove from one place to another according to inclination" as "an attribute of personal liberty" protected by the Constitution.

Yes. The Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance is void for vagueness and thus unconstitutional because it fails to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct and it encourages arbitrary enforcement. First, the ordinance's archaic and imprecise terms, such as 'rogues and vagabonds,' 'habitual loafers,' and 'wandering or strolling,' make it impossible for a person of ordinary intelligence to know what conduct is unlawful. These terms criminalize activities that are historically part of the amenities of life and normally innocent. Second, the ordinance places unfettered discretion in the hands of the police, allowing them to make arrests based on their own suspicions and predilections rather than on probable cause. This creates a risk of harsh and discriminatory enforcement against the poor, minorities, and other unpopular groups, which is incompatible with the principles of due process.

Yes, the Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is void for vagueness. The ordinance fails to give fair notice of prohibited conduct, as it criminalizes normally innocent activities without providing clear standards. This leads to arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. The unfettered discretion placed in the hands of police may result in people being punished for merely vindicating affronts to police authority. Definiteness is required in criminal statutes so that people of common intelligence can understand what is prohibited and so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is not encouraged. The ordinance's vague language and archaic classifications do not provide sufficient notice, permit and encourage arbitrary arrests, and place unfettered discretion in the hands of police. Therefore, it violates the Due Process Clause.

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot