Case Name: In Re Opal Howard
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1912-05-25
Citations: 15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: In Re Opal Howard.
Judges: Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 15
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
LOITERING NOT A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
In Re Opal Howard.
Decided, May 25, 1912.
Municipal Corporations — Invalidity of Ordinance Making Loitering a Punishable Offense — Sections 3616 and 3664.
Authority has not been delegated to municipal corporations in Ohio to provide by ordinance for the arrest and punishment of those found loitering or wandering about the streets.
Bernard G. Fox, Police Court Prosecutor, for plaintiff in error.
A. Lee Beaty, W. W. Hester and William Thorndyhe, contra.
Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
Error to the Court of Insolvency.
Affirming the holding announced in the similar case of In re Stella Dunlap, 13 N.P.(N.S.), p. -.

Opinion:
Under Section 3664 of the General Code, following Section 3616 thereof, in which "All municipal corporations shall have the general powers mentioned in this chapter (Chapter 1, enumeration of powers), and council may provide by ordinance or resolution for the exercise and enforcement of them," we find no power delegated to the city of Cincinnati to provide for the arrest and punishment of one "unlawfully found loitering about and wandering about the streets of the city of Cincinnati in the day time and the night time without any lawful means of support and without being able to give satisfactory account of himself. "
Under the above cited chapter and section the power to pass the ordinance in question in .this case has not been delegated to the municipal corporation.
The conclusion of the court below was therefore correct, and the judgment is affirmed.