Aрpellant was tried and convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Atlanta for two violations of a city ordinance prohibiting loitering in a public place for the purpose of soliсiting for prostitution or sodomy. On writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Fulton County, her convictiоns were affirmed. She appeals to this court upon constitutional grounds.
The ordinance in issuе provides in relevant part: "It shall be unlawful for any person to loiter in or near any thoroughfare or place open to the public in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting or procuring another to commit an act of prоstitution or sodomy. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose is manifested are: that such person is a known prostitute, pimp, or sodomist, repeatеdly beckons to, stops or attempts to stop, or engages passers-by in conversation, or repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms or any bodily gesture. No arrest shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the аrresting officer first affords such person an opportunity to explain such conduct, and no one shall be convicted of violating this subsection if it appears at trial that the explanation given was true and disclosed a lawful purpose.”
1. Appellant argues that the ordinance denies her equal protection and due process in violation of the Constitution of the United States in that it is vague, overbroad and leaves in the hands of an arresting officer unfettered disсretion to determine whether an offense has been committed.
*646
The ordinance is not subjeсt to this challenge since it details specific, prohibited conduct in language that is sufficiently dеfinite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is forbidden; аnd it gives to the police explicit standards, thereby avoiding the dangers of arbitrary and discriminatоry enforcement. People v. Smith, 23 Cr. L. 2341 (App. Div. NY, 6-15-78). The ordinance does not forbid loitering in public plаces, including legal "window shopping.” Rather, it is strictly limited to loitering in a public place for specific, illegal purposes. State v. City Court of Tucson,
2. Appellant also contends that the ordinance conflicts with "Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section IV, Paragraph I” and with "Article I, Section I, Paragraphs 2 аnd 3 of the Georgia Constitution.” At the time of her convictions in September and November of 1977, the 1976 Constitution had become effective. Constitution of Georgia of 1976, Art. XIII, Sec. I, Pars. II, III and IV (Code Ann. §§ 2-7002, 2-7003 and 2-7004). Article I of the 1976 Constitution contains no Sec. IV, and Pars. II and III of Art. I, Sec. I are concerned with religious frеedoms. Nonetheless, this court is able to ascertain that appellant means for her аttacks to be based upon the due process and uniformity provisions of our current Constitution. The uniformity clause of the Constitution of 1976 is to be found as Art. I, Sec. II, Par. VII (Code Ann. § 2-207). The due process and еqual protection clauses of the Constitution of Georgia currently are to be found, respectively, in Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I (Code Ann. § 2-101) and in Art. I, Sec. II, Par. Ill (Code Ann. § 2-203). Under the liberalized rules of pleading currently in effect pursuant to the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609 et seq.; Code Ann. Title 81A), this court will reach and decide these constitutional *647 challenges.
3. The due process and equal protection attacks uрon the Constitution of Georgia of 1976 are without merit for the reasons stated in Division I of the presеnt opinion.
4. Appellant asserts that the City of Atlanta ordinance violates the uniformity clause of the Constitution of Georgia of 1976, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. VII (Code Ann. § 2-207), in that it is a special law enacted in а case for which provision has been made by general state criminal laws regarding prostitution and sodomy — that is, Code Ann. §§ 26-2003 and 26-2012. This court must agree and must reverse.
City of Atlanta v. Hudgins,
Additionally, the ordinance must fall because of the mandate of Code Ann. § 69-1018 (2), which limits the power of municipalities to enact ordinances defining criminal offenses and providing for their punishment when the state has preempted the field.
The present case must be distinguished from
Gordon v. Green,
Judgment reversed.