In regards to a charge of loitering. On what basis do they arrest for loitering. In other words, what is the difference between innocent loitering and criminal loitering.
I have been reading a bit about it online, including this page about the City of Chicago vs. Morales.
I ask because I heard some parents talking at my church, and they were really upset that apparently their two boys (around 19 years old) had been together one evening, went into a convenience store to purchase drinks, went back out to the car, and "they say" a police officer came up and arrested them for 'criminal loitering' for no reason.
Me -- I think there has to be more to the story than that. Although I also know the boys and doubt they were actually doing anything with any kind of criminal intent. But I don't know what police look for before they arrest someone for "loitering" since there seem to be no good defintion of what loitering is, or why it is wrong.
posted
Farmgirl, I can't find much on Kansas loitering law. It doesn't seem to be a crime per se at the state level, but rather a form of trespassing if a property owner posts a "no loitering" sign.
In Witchita (I'm not sure of your jurisdiction), there is/was an ordinance that made it unlawful to " "loiter, loaf, wander, stand or remain idle either alone and/or in consort with others in a public place in such manner as to:
"(1) Obstruct any public street, public highway, public sidewalk or any other public place or building by hindering or impeding or tending to hinder or impede the free and uninterrupted passage of vehicles, traffic or pedestrians;
"(2) Commit in or upon any public street, public highway, public sidewalk or any other public place or building any act or thing which is an obstruction or interference to the free and uninterrupted use of property or with any business lawfully conducted by anyone in or upon or facing or fronting on any such public street, public highway, public sidewalk or any other public place or building, all of which prevents the free and uninterrupted ingress, egress, and regress therein, thereon and thereto."
But this could be wildly different for different locations, including individual towns within counties.
So, in short, I can't provide any info.
As to Morales, it's very hard to use as a precedent for anything. It was a very results-oriented decision. The two primary objections wouldn't seem to exist with the Witchita ordinance, for example, because of the additional elements of impeding, etc. (As an aside, if you ever want to see some interesting thoughts on police protection and crime prevention as a civil right, check out Thomas's dissent in Morales.)
Dagonee P.S., even though I haven't actually told you anything, I have to give a disclaimer: none of this is advice or in anyway substitutes for advice from a licensed attorney.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, I wasn't really trying to use the Morales case as a precedent -- I was just trying to use it to understand what they consider "loitering" to be.
and there seems to be no good definition.
I wish the city put their own laws on their city website -- but I think they pretty much adopt a state universal code.
I think these guys are going to need video from the convenience store, if they really want to prove they weren't loitering. And if they were paying customers (they said they threw away the receipt), then it would show.
Not that the damage hasn't already been done -- their car was taken to impound and they had to spend $150 to get it out -- so even if they are cleared of all charges at court date, that won't get them the $150 back.
I guess I just won't get involved. I was just curious.
posted
Not true...if they are found not guilty they can get the police to reinburse them for the illegal tow. I had it happen here in MA, although I had a good lawyer...and the charge wasn't loitering. It was a case of mistaken identity, almost 14 years ago. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, spelling aside , they need to have a lawyer. If they do, and if they're telling the truth, they should be able to take care of this easily. If they mouthed off, or stayed around a long time and refused to leave when asked, they may have trouble.
It could be a case of mistaken identity on the part of the cops, too. They saw two kids, told them to leave, left, came back 15 minutes later and saw two similar looking kids and busted them. If so, the police reports should reflect this, and then they can try to make their case.
I kind of agree that something more is happening here, though.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It was a case of mistaken identity, almost 14 years ago. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, they need to have a lawyer. If they do, and if they're telling the truth, they should be able to take care of this easily. If they mouthed off, or stayed around a long time and refused to leave when asked, they may have trouble.
