Introduction
Loitering is defined as the act of lingering in a public location for a lengthy period for no apparent reason. The loitering laws in Florida, 856.021, makes it illegal for anybody to linger or roam in a location, at a time, or in a manner not typical of law-abiding citizens (West’s Florida Statutes Annotated, n.d., para 1). It covers situations that call for a legitimate and realistic alarm or imminent worry for the safety of people or property nearby. Before being arrested for a violation under this provision, a person is allowed to clarify their presence and behavior, according to the legislation. A breach of this law is deemed a second-degree misdemeanor and is penalized.
Loitering Laws
Loitering legislation is intended to handle criminal neighborhood gang problems while also keeping citizens and neighborhoods secure. The City of Somerville’s loitering code is an example of this sort of legislation, and it allows police officers to arrest alleged gang members who are caught lingering on sidewalks (Packebusch, 2006). The rule allows local police officers to issue warnings to anyone remaining in specific locations that they suspect are gang members, requiring them to leave promptly or risk penalties or jail (Packebusch, 2006). Failure to follow through with an officer’s orders carries penalties ranging from fines and up to six months in prison for first-time offenders to obligatory incarceration for all second-time or future offenders.
The selected law review article notes that the validity of loitering has been maintained. Still, the Court has also decided that a broad definition of what constitutes lingering might lead to discrimination and disproportionate police enforcement. In the City of Chicago v. Morales judgment, the United States Supreme Court issued its most generally remembered case on loitering, ruling that a Chicago statute preventing gang loitering was unconstitutional for vagueness (Packebusch, 2006). According to the Court, the insufficient definition facilitated discrimination and arbitrary execution by police.
Furthermore, the chosen law review article offers a piece of indirect evidence that loitering statutes adversely impacts people living in low-income neighborhoods. According to Packebusch (2006), the Somerville gang loitering act has been condemned for targeting low-income young people who stay out on street ends and in other public locations. As a result, it might be claimed that loitering laws unfairly damage those living in low-income districts. This viewpoint is backed by the fact that such legislation is frequently used as an excuse to stop and search persons suspected of being suspicious, which might result in biased effects (Packebusch, 2006). As a result, it is critical to carefully analyze the unintended impacts of loitering regulations and ensure that they are not utilized as a weapon for discriminatory enforcement activities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Florida’s loitering laws forbid loitering or lurking in ways that are not typical of law-abiding citizens. The goal of such laws is to combat criminal street gang issues while also keeping citizens and communities secure. However, the legitimacy of loitering has been maintained, with the Court holding that a broad definition of what constitutes loitering can lead to discrimination and arbitrary law enforcement by police. The selected law review article contends that loitering rules disproportionately harm those living in low-income communities because they are frequently utilized as a cover for stopping and questioning people who are regarded to be suspicious. As a result, it is critical to guarantee that loitering regulations are not used to justify discriminatory enforcement actions.
References
Packebusch, J. E. (2006). Gang loitering ordinances post-morales: Has vagueness been remedied? Somerville, Massachusetts says yes. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 32(161).
West’s Florida Statutes Annotated. (n.d.). 856.021. Loitering or prowling; penalty. Westlaw. Web.