Papachristou v. Jacksonville

NAME:	Papachristou (“P”) v. Jacksonville (“D”)	405 U.S. 156	1972
FACTS:	· The various P’s under this case were charged with various offenses such as “prowling by auto,” “loitering,” “common thief,” for having no identification and because the officers did not believe their story.
PROCEDURE:	The case involves 8 Ds who were convicted in a Florida municipal court of violating a Jacksonville, Florida, vagrancy ordinance.
ISSUE:	Are the charges against the various P’s enforceable under Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 26-57?
HOLDING:	NO. The Jacksonville ordinance cannot be squared with our constitutional standards and is plainly unconstitutional.
REASONING:	· (RULE): Lanzetta v. New Jersey – “all persons are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” · The Jacksonville ordinance makes criminal activities which by modern standards are normally innocent · (RULE): U.S. v. Reese – “It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.” · Here the net cast is large, not to give the courts the power to pick and choose but to increase the arsenal of the police. The ordinance’s vagueness places in the hands of the Jacksonville police the effect of unfettered discretion. · We allow our police to make arrests only on “probable cause” (4th and 14th amendment standard), not on suspicion. Therefore, a direction by a legislature to the police to arrest all “suspicious” persons would not pass constitutional muster. · Vagrancy laws of the Jacksonville type teach that the scales of justice are so tipped that even-handed administration of the law is not possible.
DISPOSITION:	Reversed
DISSENT:	None