Opinion ID: 1228754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Next in focus is Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 86 S.Ct. 211, 15 L.Ed.2d 176 (1965).

Text: The ordinance there involved stated: It shall be unlawful for any person or any number of persons to so stand, loiter or walk upon any street or sidewalk in the city as to obstruct free passage over, on or along said street or sidewalk. It shall also be unlawful for any person to stand or loiter upon any street or sidewalk of the city after having been requested by any police officer to move on. By an analytical approach the court found this ordinance, literally construed, sets forth two separate offenses. As thus viewed the second sentence would independently and unconstitutionally prohibit a person from standing on Birmingham sidewalks only at the whim and fancy of a policeman. Despite this threshold view the enactment was found to have been so narrowed by the Alabama Court of Appeals as to be facially constitutional. More specifically, under Alabama's construction mere failure to comply with a peace officer's directive to move on would not suffice, it being also essential an accused be shown to have obstructed free passage. The United States Supreme Court held, however, since the trial court may have found defendants guilty by applying the above noted literal terms of the ordinance the case must be reversed. An examination of the instant Des Moines ordinance and Birmingham's above quoted ordinance, as narrowly construed, reveals they are comparable. This observation is in any event appropriate when such comparison is limited to the first sentence of the Birmingham ordinance. Turning now to specifics it is to us evident the ordinance here in question discloses people are not thereby prohibited from standing on a sidewalk. It is rather directed to those persons, grouped or assembled, who obstruct the free and open use of public walkways by pedestrians. In other words, the obvious and legitimate regulatory objective is to protect each person's right to the unobstructed use of municipal sidewalks. Moreover, the above purpose is stated in sufficiently definite terms to enable all reasonable persons to know what conduct is proscribed and what acts will make them subject to the penalty provided. See generally Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 615-616, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 1338, 20 L. Ed.2d 182 (1968); Stake v. Robinson, 183 N.W.2d at 193-194. In light of the foregoing we now hold Des Moines City Ordinance 32-28.01 is not so vague and uncertain as to be facially violative of any constitutional provision invoked by defendant, federal or state. Accord, People of City of Detroit v. Ritchey, 25 Mich.App. 98, 181 N.W.2d 87, 88 (1970); People v. Deutsch, 19 Mich.App. 74, 172 N.W.2d 392, 394-395 (1969); People v. Wedlow, 17 Mich.App. 134, 169 N. W.2d 145, 146-148 (1969). See also Annot. 25 A.L.R.3d 836. Finally on this subject we are also satisfied the ordinances involved in three relatively recent United States Supreme Court decisions, here relied on in part by defendant, are so readily distinguishable they are instantly of little or no significance. See Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); Coates v. City of Cincinnati and Palmer v. City of Euclid, Ohio, both supra.