State v. Ecker
311 So. 2d 104 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A loitering statute is constitutional if it is narrowly tailored to prohibit specific conduct that threatens public safety or a breach of the peace, and is not void for vagueness if it requires officers to have specific, articulable facts to justify an alarm for public safety.
Facts:
- In the case of Joseph Bell, he was observed hiding in the bushes of a private residence at 1:20 a.m.
- When a police officer arrived, Bell jumped over a fence surrounding the dwelling and began running.
- In the case of Billy Worth, he was present in a commercial warehouse area at 9:30 p.m.
- Three citizens stopped Worth, became concerned about his presence, and called the police.
- In the case of William Ecker, he was observed standing in front of an apartment building.
- In the case of Walter Harris, the record provides no underlying substantive facts leading to his charge.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Bell was convicted in a trial court for violating the loitering statute and appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- Billy Worth was convicted in a trial court for violating the loitering statute and appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- William Ecker was charged with loitering, but the trial court dismissed the charges, finding the statute unconstitutional. The State of Florida appealed the dismissal.
- Walter Harris was charged with loitering, and the trial court also dismissed his case on constitutional grounds. The State of Florida appealed that dismissal.
- The Supreme Court of Florida consolidated these four cases to rule on the constitutionality of the statute.
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 Florida's loitering statute, Section 856.021, which prohibits loitering 'under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property,' violate the Constitution on the grounds of vagueness, overbreadth, or compelling self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, J.
No, the Florida loitering statute is constitutional because it is narrowly defined and includes safeguards against arbitrary enforcement. The statute is not vague because the phrase 'under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm' is interpreted to mean situations where peace and order are threatened, requiring police to point to 'specific and articulable facts' under the standard from Terry v. Ohio. It does not compel self-incrimination because requiring identification is a neutral act, and the provision allowing a person to 'explain his presence and conduct' is an affirmative defense, not a compulsion to speak. Finally, the statute avoids arbitrary enforcement by requiring proof of two elements: (1) unusual loitering and (2) circumstances threatening public safety, thus limiting police discretion unlike older vagrancy laws struck down in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville.
Dissenting - Ervin, J. (Retired)
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. This law is merely a re-wording of older, unconstitutional vagrancy statutes that were condemned in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville for infringing on personal freedoms. The majority's attempt to distinguish this statute is 'sheer sophistry,' and it represents an unnecessary 'incursion into basic freedoms' when other valid criminal statutes already exist to protect public safety.
Analysis:
This decision provides a constitutional framework for modern loitering statutes in the post-Papachristou era, where broad laws criminalizing a person's 'status' were struck down. By tying the offense to specific conduct that creates a reasonable fear for public safety and requiring 'specific and articulable facts,' the court transforms loitering from a status crime into a conduct-based offense. This case establishes a blueprint for legislatures to draft preventative public safety laws that can withstand vagueness and overbreadth challenges, so long as they include procedural safeguards like the opportunity to dispel alarm and clear, objective standards for enforcement.
