Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Clark

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2171, 515 N.Y.S.2d 382, 135 Misc. 2d 22 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A law prohibiting loitering in a public transportation facility that requires a person to provide a "satisfactory explanation" for their presence is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a statute fails to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by police.


Facts:

  • The defendant was present at the Port Authority bus terminal.
  • When questioned by authorities, the defendant was unable to provide what they considered a satisfactory explanation for his presence.
  • The defendant was subsequently arrested for loitering under Penal Law § 240.35 (7).
  • Upon his arrest, a search of the defendant revealed an envelope containing cocaine and a glass pipe.

Procedural Posture:

  • The defendant was charged in Criminal Court with loitering and possession of a controlled substance.
  • At his arraignment, the defendant moved to dismiss the loitering charge, arguing the underlying statute was unconstitutional.
  • The Criminal Court (the court of first instance) denied the motion to dismiss.
  • The defendant then pleaded guilty to the loitering charge in satisfaction of both charges, while preserving his right to appeal the constitutional issue.
  • The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does New York Penal Law § 240.35 (7), which criminalizes loitering in a transportation facility without being able to give a "satisfactory explanation" of one's presence, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by being unconstitutionally vague?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, New York Penal Law § 240.35 (7) violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The statute is unconstitutionally vague for two primary reasons. First, it fails to give fair notice of prohibited conduct because a large, multipurpose public space like the Port Authority bus terminal is not a place of 'restricted public access' where a simple ban on loitering might be permissible. Second, the requirement to provide a 'satisfactory explanation' grants police unfettered discretion, which can lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, a standard condemned by the Supreme Court in cases like Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville.



Analysis:

This decision invalidates a common type of loitering statute, particularly as applied to modern, large-scale public transportation hubs that function as multipurpose public spaces. It reinforces the constitutional doctrine that criminal laws must be specific enough to guide both citizens' conduct and police enforcement to pass scrutiny under the vagueness doctrine. The ruling signals that courts will carefully scrutinize laws that criminalize mere presence in public areas, especially those that delegate a high degree of subjective discretion to law enforcement officers through provisions like a "satisfactory explanation" clause.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query People v. Clark (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for People v. Clark