State v. StilleyState v. Stilley
A grand jury chаrged Stephanie Stilley with loitering in violation of
“A. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any person, betweеn the hours of 6:00 a. m. and 9:00 p. m. on the day on which there is being held any primary or general election, to perform or cause to be performed any оf the following acts within a radius of six hundred feet of the entrance to any polling place being used in such election on election day or any place wherein absentee voting is being conducted:
* * * * * *
“(2) To loiter within the abovе described area of any such polling place; ...”
The trial court then quashed the indictment on the ground that
A criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague if its mеaning is not clear to the average citizen and policeman. Due рrocess requires that the public have notice of what conduct is proscribed.
The word “loiter” is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, as follows:
“To be dilatory; to be slow in movement; to stand around or move slowly аbout; to stand idly around; to spend time idly; to saunter; to delay; to idle; to linger; to lag behind.”
Thus, loiter does not have a precise meaning. See Scott v. District Attorney, Jefferson Parish, 309 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.La., 1970), affirmed 437 F.2d 500 (5 Cir. 1971). One can loiter by standing or walking. Almost any citizen within a six hundred foot radius of a рolling place or absentee voting site could be charged with loitering. One walking to the polling place to vote could be accused of sauntering. See the discussion of loitering at 29 La.L.Rev. 373.
A criminal statute is unconstitutionally оverbroad if its enforcement must necessarily be arbitrary. A statute should provide objective standards. Not only is the word loiter imprecise, it also encompasses a wide range of innocent activities. There are too mаny versions of loitering for the term to define criminal conduct. See State v. Pugh, 369 So.2d 1308 (La., 1979). Because the statute could be enforced against almost anyone or no one,
Therefore, the statute in question is both vague and overbroad. The trial court correctly held that
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial сourt is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CALOGERO, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
While I agree that prohibiting “loitering” outside a polling place within the prescribed 600 foot radius is sufficiently vague that an ordinary citizen or pоliceman might be confused as to what activity is prohibited, I do not believe that conclusion applies to a person‘s perception of whаt it means to “loiter” within the polling place, an area where there is no right to “stand idly around.” The reasons for being within the polling place are genеrally limited to those related to legitimate election-related pursuits (е.g. poll watching) and those not related to election-related pursuits, suсh as electioneering, or simply standing about. I therefore do not consider the law vague as it relates to “loitering” inside of the polling place.
Nonetheless, since the statute encompasses activities of both sorts, I concur in the majority declaration that the statute is unconstitutional. Statutory revision would seem to be in order, either or proscribe “loitering” within the polling place or to describe рrohibited activity outside the polling place within the 600 foot radius more precisely.