Document: 362 U.S. 199 80 S.Ct. 624 4 L.Ed.2d 654 Sam THOMPSON, Petitioner,v.CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al. No. 59. Argued Jan. 11, 12, 1960. Decided March 21, Mr. Louis Lusky, Louisville, Ky. (Messrs, Marvin H. Morse, Ky., Harold Leventhal and Eugene Gressman, Washington, D.C.) on the brief, for petitioner. Herman E. Frick, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was found guilty in Police Court Kentucky, two offenses—loitering disorderly conduct. The ultimate question presented to us is whether charges against petitioner were so totally devoid evidentiary support as render his conviction unconstitutional under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Decision this turns not sufficiency evidence, but rests upon any evidence at all. 2 facts shown by record are short simple. Petitioner, a longtime resident Louisville area, went into Liberty End Cafe about 6:20 Saturday evening, January 24, 1959. In addition selling food cafe licensed sell beer public some 12 30 patrons present during time there. When had been half an hour, police officers came 'routine check.' Upon seeing 'out there floor dancing himself,' one officers, according testimony, up manager who sitting stool nearby asked him how long if he bought anything. officer testified that being told 'a little over half-hour anything,' accosted Thompson 'asked what reason said waiting bus.' then informed arrest took outside. This loitering. After going outside, testified, 'was very argumentative—he argued with back forth we placed conduct charge him.' Admittedly solely sentence description petitioner's after left cafe. 3 foregoing includes all city offered him, except purportedly showing total 54 previous arrests Before putting defense, moved dismissal ground judgment would deprive property liberty1 without due process law Amendment (1) no findings guilt (2) prosecutions reprisals because employed counsel demanded judicial hearing defend himself prior allegedly baseless police.2 motion denied. put own behalf, none which way strengthened city's case. He bought, employees served dish macaroni glass remained bus go home.3 Further showed dispute gave home address; money schedule stop within block 7:30; owned unimproved lots land; work done others, regularly worked day or more week same family years; paid rent where lived meager income sufficient meet needs. frequently patronized cafe, never unwelcome further occasion saw 'standing middle patting foot,' did stay object anything doing. There anyone else objected shuffing feet rhythm music jukebox boisterous offensive present. At close repeated liberty court denied motion, convicted both offenses, fined $10 each charge. A new trial, grounds, also denied, exhausted remedies court. 5 Since fines less than $20 single appealable otherwise reviewable other Kentucky court,4 judgments might have opportunity apply certiorari (before case became moot)5 review contentions raised. suspended 24 hours sought longer from Circuit That court, examining court's transcript, granted concluding 'there appears be merit' contention could based' Federal Sonstitutional claims substantial frivolous.'6 On appeal city, Appeals held lacked power grant it did, nevertheless take extraordinary step granting its stay, even though made original application such stay.7 Explaining reason, agree 'federal constitutional frivolous.'8 say 6 'appears real has Constitution, yet substantive right cannot tested unless execution will satisfied jail before can prepare file petition certiorari. Appellee's avail grants ancillary whereby may test Supreme Court.'9 7 Our examination convinced although here small, questions therefore judgments. 360 916, 79 1433, 1532. Compare Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 356, 1064, L.Ed. 220 (San Francisco Judges imposing fine, upheld state appellate invalid contravention Amendment). 8 correctly assumes these convictions they void denials process.10 pertinent portion ordinance loitering reads follows: 9 'It shall unlawful person * *, visible means support, give satisfactory account himself, sleep, lie, loaf, trespass premises, building, structure City first having obtained consent owner controller structure, building; *' § 85—12, Ordinances Louisville.11 10 fact proved 'visible support,' prosecutor trial 'This here. support.' Moreover, suggestion sleeping, lying trespassing Accordingly only unable while manager. Under words itself, fails prove three elements charge, supported event does comport law. entirely lacking charges. 11 Here, spent hour evening sold public. presence there, bus. concedes making offense 'dance,' 'shuffle' 'pat' music. undisputed testimony manager, know see patting, shuffling dancing, welcome doing do cause objection. Surely implied consent, admitted oral argument satisfies ordinance. arresting nothing 'valgar' called 'ordinary dance,' whatever relevance, any, vulgarity simply semblance reasonably infer loafing (in ordinary sense words) 'the controller' Petitioner's 85 which, definition, provides '(w)hoever *.' etc. 'disorderly conduct' statement policeman arrested taken out argumentative. raised voice, used language, resisted engaged kind likely adversely affect good order tranquillity Louisville. information contains 'argumentative' 'what me for.' We assume, justified assuming, merely 'arguing' not, be, matter Kentucky. See Lanzetta State New Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 83 888. itself seems provide man wrongfully officer, waives complain later unlawful. Nickell Commonwealth, 285 S.W.2d 495, 496. 13 Thus find convictions. Just 'Conviction sheer denial process,'12 violation convict punish guilt.13 14 reversed remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 15 Reversed remanded. §§ 85—8, 85—12 ordinances subject imprisonment, fine confinement workhouse default payment fine. added effect deny redress alleged arbitrary arrests. based that, law, bars suits malicious prosecution false imprisonment. Thus, says, continued neither regular procedures nor challenge independent civil actions. officer's drink seriously undermined, contradicted, manager's trial. stated I (sic) thing eat (Emphasis supplied.) And acknowledged something waiter waitress noticing it. Whether purchase however, significance issue bere. Ky.Rev.Stat. 26.080; 26.010. Both Jefferson either direct collateral proceeding foreclosed Taustine, 40175, (Kentucky) Court, Common Pleas Branch, Fifth Division (Per Grauman, J.) (1959), unreported; Taustine Thompson, 1959, 322 100. Without bail pending prison days rate $2 day. Ky.1959, (per unreported. Id., page 101. 102. For illustration, brief states '1. convictions, meets requirements clause Section 85—13 penalties 12. De Jonge Oregon, 299 353, 362, 57 255, 259, 81 278. Cole Arkansas, 333 196, 201, 68 514, 517, 92 644. Schware Board Bar Examiners N.M., 353 232, 77 752, 796; United States ex rel. Vajtauer Commissioner Immigration Port York, 273 103, 106, 47 302, 303, 71 560; Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543; 220. Cf. Akins Texas, 325 398, 402, 65 1276, 1278, 89 1692; Tot States, 319 463, 473, 63 1241, 1247, 87 1519 (concurring opinion); Mooney Holohan, 294 55 340, 791.

Category: 3