Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville
31 L. Ed. 2d 110 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
Facts
Eight defendants were arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, under a vagrancy ordinance. Margaret Papachristou, Betty Calloway, Eugene Eddie Melton, and Leonard Johnson were arrested early on a Sunday morning while riding in a car on their way to a nightclub, charged with "prowling by auto." Jimmy Lee Smith and Milton Henry were arrested in downtown Jacksonville while waiting for a friend to lend them a car to apply for a job, charged as "vagabonds." Henry Edward Heath and a codefendant were arrested for "loitering" and "common thief" when they drove up to a residence where police were already present. Thomas Owen Campbell was arrested near his home and charged as a "common thief" after being stopped for speeding, though no speeding charge was filed. Hugh Brown was arrested leaving a downtown hotel, and after an officer searched him, finding heroin, he was charged with "disorderly loitering on street" and "disorderly conduct — resisting arrest with violence."
Procedural history
The defendants were convicted in a Florida municipal court for violating a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance. Their convictions were affirmed by the Florida Circuit Court in a consolidated appeal. A petition for certiorari was denied by the District Court of Appeal. The case then came before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, which was granted.
Issue
Is the Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance unconstitutionally vague because it fails to give fair notice of forbidden conduct and encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions?
Holding
Yes, the Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance is unconstitutional. The Court reversed the convictions of the defendants.
Rule
A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is forbidden and if it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. The rule of law requires that all persons be informed as to what the State commands or forbids. Vagrancy laws, like the one in Jacksonville, are problematic because they make normally innocent activities criminal, fail to provide ascertainable standards of guilt, and grant unfettered discretion to police, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The implicit presumption in such generalized vagrancy standards—that crime is being nipped in the bud—is too precarious for a rule of law and cannot be squared with constitutional standards.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.