Court Opinion

ID: 9423742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:08:58.832227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:45.858973
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
with whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins, dissenting.
Florida’s courts have obviously interpreted their statute to permit a showing that a defendant was on a park bench at 4:25 a. m. “without any lawful purpose or object” to establish a prima facie case that the defendant was “wandering or strolling around” without lawful purpose. Most inhabitants of park benches reach their bench by wandering or strolling. So interpreting the statute, constitutionally sufficient amounts of evidence were presented.
The Court does not reach the claim appellant makes here, that Florida’s statute offends the Constitution because it is vague. That claim is substantial, and I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.