Docket nos. 70-5030 | End date 1972 | |
Full case name Margaret Papachristou et al. v. City of Jacksonville Citations 405 U.S. 156 (more)92 S. Ct. 839; 31 L. Ed. 2d 110; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 84 Prior history Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, 236 So. 2d 141 (1970) Majority Douglas, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun Similar City of Chicago v Morales, Hiibel v Sixth Judicial D, Morissette v United States, Kent v Dulles, Skilling v United States | ||
Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance being declared unconstitutionally vague. The case was argued on December 8, 1971, and decided on February 24, 1972. The respondent was the city of Jacksonville, Florida.
Contents
Facts
Papachristou was one of eight defendants who were convicted for violating a Jacksonville, Florida, vagrancy ordinance which forbade a large number of activities including "wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object". The defendants were charged with several violations under the ordinance: prowling by auto, being vagabonds, loitering, being common thieves, disorderly loitering, and resisting arrest.
Opinion of the Court
The Court held that the vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it gave too much arbitrary power to the police. The court found that the laws could potentially criminalize a variety of innocent activities, such as "nightwalking," or "habitually living 'without visible means of support.'" A valid law, the Court found, needed to be clearly written and evenly administered.
The Court stated:
Those generally implicated by the imprecise terms of the ordinance -- poor people, nonconformists, dissenters, idlers -- may be required to comport themselves according to the lifestyle deemed appropriate by the Jacksonville police and the courts. 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 results in a regime in which the poor and the unpopular are permitted to "stand on a public sidewalk . . . only at the whim of any police officer."