Palmer v. City of Euclid, Ohio
| Decision Date | 24 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 143,143 |
| Parties | James PALMER, Appellant, v. CITY OF EUCLID, OHIO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Niki Z. Schwartz, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
David J. Lombardo, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Appellant Palmer was convicted by a jury of violating the City of Euclid's 'suspicious person ordinance,' that is, of being
'(a)ny person who wanders about the streets or other public ways or who is found abroad at late or unusual hours in the night without any visible or lawful business and who does not give satisfactory account of himself.'
He was fined $50 and sentenced to 30 days in jail. The County Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was dismissed 'for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.' We noted probable jurisdiction. 397 U.S. 1073, 90 S.Ct. 1525, 25 L.Ed.2d 808 (1970).
We reverse the judgment against Palmer because the ordinance is so vague and lacking in ascertainable standards of guilt that, as applied to Palmer, it failed to give 'a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden * * *.' United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954).
The elements of the crime defined by the ordinance apparently are (1) wandering about the streets or being abroad at late or unusual hours; (2) being at the time without visible or lawful business;* and (3) failing to give a satisfactory explanation for his presence on the streets. Palmer, in his car, was seen late at night in a parking lot. A female left his car and entered by the front door an adjoining apartment house. Palmer then pulled onto the street, parked with his lights on, and used a two-way radio. He was not armed. He said he had just let off a friend. He was then arrested. At the station he gave three different addresses for himself and said he did not know his friend's name or where she was going when she left his car. Palmer could reasonably be charged with knowing that he was on the streets at a late or unusual hour and that denying knowledge of his friend's identity and claiming multiple addresses amounted to an unsatisfactory explanation under the ordinance. But in our view the ordinance gave insufficient notice to the average person that discharging a friend at an apartment house and then talking on a car radio while parked on the street was enough to show him to be 'without any visible or lawful business.' Insofar as this record reveals, everything appellant did was quite visible and there is no suggestion whatsoever that what he did was unlawful under local, state, or federal law. If his conduct nevertheless satisfied the being-without-visible-or-lawful-business element of the ordinance, as the state courts must have held, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldin v. Public Utilities Commission
...to raise them. With respect to the matter of vagueness petitioner places heavy reliance on the case of Palmer v. City of Euclid (1971) 402 U.S. 544, 91 S.Ct. 1563, 29 L.Ed.2d 98, wherein the Supreme Court, in a short per curiam opinion, struck down a city's "suspicious person ordinance" on ......
-
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Gibson
...face, Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972), or as applied, Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544, 91 S.Ct. 1563, 29 L.Ed.2d 98 (1971), although this distinction appears to be related to the extent and scope of the remedy rather than to the defect ......
-
Goguen v. Smith, 72-1204.
...Oswald, 336 F.Supp. 371 (S.D.N.Y.1971), aff'd, 406 U.S. 913, 92 S.Ct. 1773, 32 L.Ed.2d 113 (1972); but cf. Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544, 91 S.Ct. 1563, 29 L.Ed.2d 98 (1971). 9 The Court did not rest its decisions in these cases on the Raines exception allowing void-for-vagueness a......
-
National Socialist White People's Party v. Ringers
... ... Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969), or where ... City of Oakland, 247 F.Supp. 995, 1001 (N.D.Cal.1965); Williams v. Wallace, 240 ... ...
-
Dispatch from the Supreme Court archives: vagrancy, abortion, and what the links between them reveal about the history of fundamental rights.
...(1968). (131.) In addition to Papachristou and Coates, the Court also struck down a suspicious persons law in Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544, 544-45 (132.) 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); 405 U.S. 156 (1971). (133.) There is already a substantial literature on the relationship between the Wa......
-
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1970-1971
...con- duct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed, the Court ina per curiam decision (Palmer v. City of Euclid, Ohio, 402 U.S. 544; 91 S. 1563) held void Euclid’s &dquo;suspicious person ordinance.&dquo; This provided that any person found on the street at late or unusual ......
-
Rounding Up the Undesirables: The Making of a Prostitution-Targeted Loitering Law in New York City.
...and care. NOTES (1.) Fenster v. Leary, 20 N.Y. 2d 309 (1967). (2.) People v. Berck, 32 N.Y. 2d 567 (1973). (3.) Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544 (4.) Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971). (5.) Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972). (6.) People v. Willi......