Document: 402 U.S. 544 91 S.Ct. 1563 29 L.Ed.2d 98 James PALMER, Appellant,v.CITY OF EUCLID, OHIO. No. 143. Argued Jan. 11, 1971. Decided May 24, Niki Z. Schwartz, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant. David J. Lombardo, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant Palmer was convicted by a jury of violating the City Euclid's 'suspicious person ordinance,' that is, being 2 '(a)ny who wanders about streets or other public ways is found abroad at late unusual hours in night without any visible lawful business and does not give satisfactory account himself.' 3 He fined $50 sentenced to 30 days jail. The County Court Appeals affirmed judgment appeal Supreme Ohio dismissed 'for reason no substantial constitutional question exists herein.' We noted probable jurisdiction. 397 1073, 90 1525, 25 808 (1970). 4 reverse against because ordinance so vague lacking ascertainable standards guilt that, as applied Palmer, it failed 'a ordinary intelligence fair notice his contemplated conduct forbidden * *.' United States v. Harriss, 347 612, 617, 74 808, 812, L.Ed. 989 (1954). 5 elements crime defined apparently are (1) wandering hours; (2) time business;* (3) failing explanation presence on streets. car, seen parking lot. A female left car entered front door an adjoining apartment house. then pulled onto street, parked with lights on, used two-way radio. armed. said he had just let off friend. arrested. At station gave three different addresses himself did know friend's name where she going when car. could reasonably be charged knowing hour denying knowledge identity claiming multiple amounted unsatisfactory under ordinance. But our view insufficient average discharging friend house talking radio while street enough show him 'without business.' Insofar this record reveals, everything appellant quite there suggestion whatsoever what unlawful local, state, federal law. If nevertheless satisfied being-without-visible-or-lawful-business element ordinance, state courts must have held, unreasonable charge such would construction 'The underlying principle man shall held criminally responsible which understand proscribed.' Harris, supra, S.Ct., 812; Bouie Columbia, 378 347, 84 1697, 12 894 (1964); Wright Georgia, 373 284, 83 1240, 10 349 (1963). 6 reversed. 7 It ordered. 8 Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs result. 9 STEWART, whom DOUGLAS joins, concurring. While I agree ordinance' unconstitutional appellant, go further hold unconstitutionally its face. 11 policeman has duty investigate suspicious circumstances, circumstance apparent may often present occasion police inquiry. my government power make circumstance, more, criminal offense. seemingly requires 'business' purpose seems irrational construe permitting only commercial activities streets, thus effect converting into curfew exceptions conduct. Neither lower court nor appellee city suggests should construed manner anyone expect construed.

Category: 3