Can a cop make me "move along" from a public place?

[Ambivalid]

@Dana_Scully

I could go on and on about the Seattle police but I’d better not.

They’re watching you…

[Mr_Downtown]

@Eva_Luna

I once drove a (brown) friend who was visiting from out of town to the Adler Planetarium late one evening. . . . the cops drove by and told us we weren’t allowed to park there.

That roadway (Solidarity Drive) is in Grant Park. A Park District ordinance says that nobody can be in a park between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., “except that persons and vehicles may pass through such parks without stopping, on the more direct walk or driveway leading from their point of entrance to the exit nearest to their point of destination.”

[Alley_Dweller]

@Eva_Luna

I once drove a (brown) friend who was visiting from out of town to the Adler Planetarium late one evening, maybe 11:00 pm. He is a huge amateur photography buff, and that spot has a nice view of the Chicago skyline.

I parked my car at a meter that specifically said it needed to be fed 24 hours a day., and my friend started setting up his camera. That was when the cops drove by and told us we weren’t allowed to park there. I pointed out that the meter specifically said it was in force 24 hours a day, so how could that be? The cop actually told me that the meters were for the sole use of people attending evening events at the Planetarium. Which is complete and utter crap, but I realized that was an argument I wasn’t going to win. Or at least without a LOT of inconveniences possibly involving arrest, booking, and court dates.

Actually, the cop was right. Grant Park officially closes at 11:00 pm. You can be arrested for being in the park 11:00 pm to 6:00 am without authorization from the Park District. Of course, the law isn’t consistently enforced. You’ll recall that the city tried to enforce the park hours during the 1968 Democratic Convention which led to a bit of a kerfuffle.

The signs on the parking meters don’t grant you permission to be in the park, they just say if you are parking in the park, legally or illegally, you have to pay.

[mhendo]

Many state and local loitering laws are unconstitutional, and the way that those laws are enforced is often even worse. When i lived in Baltimore, there was a big kerfuffle over the huge number of bullshit arrests made every month by police. The city police force had a habit of sweeping up dozens of people at a time, and thousands over the course of a few years, in low-level “quality of life” arrests, many of which were merely for “loitering.”

Even after the city’s highest ranking criminal prosecutor, State’s Attorney Patricia Jessamy, stated outright at a legislative hearing that many of the arrests were in violation of the Constitution, the cops continued to pick people up on slim or no pretext.

In August 2005, almost 9,000 people were taken to central booking in Baltimore. Of those, 1882 cases…

…fit under the heading “could not prove,” including 408 drug cases, 248 arrests for trespassing, and 845 loitering cases.

Jessamy referred to five individuals she said police had arrested for leaning on a car. The police “said they had warned them the day before” not to loiter there, Jessamy told the legislators. “This arrest should not have taken place.”

<snip>

Minutes after Hamm’s testimony, Jessamy told the state legislators that despite the program to train police in avoiding violations of the Fourth and Fifth amendments, the number of cases her office has had to decline to prosecute has increased. “We have given the declines to the police and built a training program around them,” Jessamy said. “Unfortunately, the number of declines are not decreasing because of this.”

Jessamy said that when she started the training in 2000 the rate of cases declined was about 15 percent. “Sometimes now it’s up to 33, 34 percent,” she said. “There is no law against citizens standing in the street leaning on a car.”

And from an earlier story:

Mrs. Jones is Baltimore City Councilman James B. Kraft’s shorthand for the upstanding citizen who wants the boys taken off the corner. The 1st District Democrat says he hears every month from constituents who complain about drug dealing or other activities.

So city police officers arrest the men on the corner. They arrest everyone on the street, and all the people sitting on the stoops. If they don’t find any drugs, they charge the arrestees with loitering or failure to obey a police officer and take them to Central Booking. “Many of those loitering arrests are just getting those people off the streets,” Kraft says, “because that’s what the community wants to do.”

Then these arrestees—about 1,800 of them every month—are released without formal charges being filed. The numbers of arrests—and the percentage of those released without charges—has been increasing steadily since 2002. Last week The Sun reported that figures for July 2005 were the highest since June 2002, when these figures began being compiled, with 2,824 cases going uncharged out of 7,697 arrests.

<snip>

Arrestees now receive a form that allows them to request expungement, though they have to give up their right to sue the department for false arrest, Warren Brown says.

<snip>

Because the Supreme Court has found the underlying law invalid, anyone in Baltimore—or anywhere else—arrested for loitering (and not additionally charged with prostitution or drug offenses) is by definition falsely arrested.

Rocah explained that a second big category of arrests that go uncharged is for “failure to obey” a police officer. “The average officer in Baltimore doesn’t have a clue as to what constitutes a lawful failure-to-obey arrest,” Rocah said. “They think that if they tell someone to do something, and they don’t do it, then they can arrest them. That’s not the law.”

[lawbuff]

@Belrix

I was rereading old threads last night and one dealt with the how men might be unwelcome sitting on a park bench near a playground. How they are perceived as stalking pedophiles.

Without getting back into that argument, say i was the one sitting on that public park bench reading my book. Could a suspicious police officer ask me to leave that place for the comfort of the children’s parents? More accurately, could he enforce that action?

Denver, CO if that makes a difference.

The city makes no difference, the Bill of Rights is applicable in all states. The 1st AM forbids such an order, and the 4th forbids enforcement.

[Ethilrist]

@Senegoid

In most of the cities I’ve lived in or visited (all in California), there is a very clearly established tendency to build public parks adjacent to public schools. Does this mean that single adult males are at risk of police harassment if they simply hang out in a public park next to a school?

If it’s illegal to loiter near schools, I don’t think it counts as harassment if the cops ask you to stop committing a crime. It’s actually darned nice of them, given the alternatives.

[Furious_Marmot]

Sometimes you’re legally obliged to do what the cop says, sometimes you’re not. Either way, defying the police is a gamble and they get to decide if (and how badly) you lose. The system will sort out the finer points of the law long after the guy who knows his rights has been beaten, locked up, and otherwise abused.

Fun story:

Good Samaritan Backfire

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@lawbuff

The city makes no difference, the Bill of Rights is applicable in all states. The 1st AM forbids such an order, and the 4th forbids enforcement.

The First Amendment doesn’t prohibit such an order. It prohibits such an order to the extent it is based on the presence of a second person. An anti-loitering statute is constitutionally permissible if enforcement is not completely within the discretion of a police officer, and it contains an element of intent.

And to clarify, only parts of the Bill of Rights apply to states (though I’m sure you knew that.)

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I enjoy watching the little ones play soccer and baseball, it takes me back to happier times. I always avoided it because I thought it might look suspicious, now I have grandkids that play so I have a good excuse.

[Saint_Cad]

@lawbuff

The city makes no difference, the Bill of Rights is applicable in all states. The 1st AM forbids such an order, and the 4th forbids enforcement.

WoW! No!
If you read the court case I linked to that directly addressed the OP’s situation (Denver and all), you’ll notice the law was thrown out because it was vague. Reread page 7 paragraph 17 in the link.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The First Amendment doesn’t prohibit such an order. It prohibits such an order to the extent it is based on the presence of a second person. An anti-loitering statute is constitutionally permissible if enforcement is not completely within the discretion of a police officer, and it contains an element of intent.

The 1st permits freedom to go and come without any govt. interference.

He said he was sitting on a public park bench reading, right?

How can such an order to leave be legal absent certain facts of course.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@lawbuff

The 1st permits freedom to go and come without any govt. interference.

No it doesn’t.

[robert_columbia]

With all the talk about Constitutional guarantees, I wonder how this would work in Unincorporated territories where the entire Constitution does not necessarily apply. Can a cop arrest you for not “moving along” out of Old San Juan?

[lawbuff]

@robert_columbia

With all the talk about Constitutional guarantees, I wonder how this would work in Unincorporated territories where the entire Constitution does not necessarily apply. Can a cop arrest you for not “moving along” out of Old San Juan?

The 4th AM applies to Puerto Rico also.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No it doesn’t.

What would his scenario encompass under a BoR protection?

Morales lists the 14th 's DP clause but in tandem mentions Dulles under the 1st.

[Kobal2]

@aldiboronti

I think in England that the law is specifically loitering with intent, ie loitering with the intention to commit a crime, although how they prove an intention I’m not sure.

Not to be confused with loitering within tent, which is a misdemeanour but only in Kyrgyzstan and among certain Native American tribes.
(no, this is not a fact-based answer in case you were wondering)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@lawbuff

What would his scenario encompass under a BoR protection?

Morales lists the 14th 's DP clause but in tandem mentions Dulles under the 1st.

The 1A issue in Morales is freedom of association, which is certainly protected by the First Amendment (the ordinance at issue made it a crime to loiter “with a gang member”.) The OP, sitting alone on a park bench, cannot really raise a freedom of association claim; he’s not associating. Of course, that doesn’t mean the cops can tell him to go about his business just because they feel like it.

[LinusK]

@Eva_Luna

If it had just been me, maybe it would have gone differently. But my friend, who was in the U.S. on a student visa? Not going to potentially subject him to that.

I understand. I’m not saying I’d be the hero either. Just sayin’.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The 1A issue in Morales is freedom of association, which is certainly protected by the First Amendment (the ordinance at issue made it a crime to loiter “with a gang member”.) The OP, sitting alone on a park bench, cannot really raise a freedom of association claim; he’s not associating. Of course, that doesn’t mean the cops can tell him to go about his business just because they feel like it.

I was familiar with Morales before you linked it but should have read it more thoroughly. So it is the DP clause the poster facts would cover, but the 1st might be an argument also, but mainly DP of the 14th.

[doorhinge]

@Eva_Luna

I once drove a (brown) friend who was visiting from out of town to the Adler Planetarium late one evening, maybe 11:00 pm. He is a huge amateur photography buff, and that spot has a nice view of the Chicago skyline.

I parked my car at a meter that specifically said it needed to be fed 24 hours a day., and my friend started setting up his camera. That was when the cops drove by and told us we weren’t allowed to park there. I pointed out that the meter specifically said it was in force 24 hours a day, so how could that be? The cop actually told me that the meters were for the sole use of people attending evening events at the Planetarium. Which is complete and utter crap, but I realized that was an argument I wasn’t going to win. Or at least without a LOT of inconveniences possibly involving arrest, booking, and court dates.

Regardless of the color of your friend, setting up an expensive camera, in that area and late at night, is a good way to lose your camera. And your wallet. And maybe meet some nice ambulance drivers and emergency room technicians before the night is thru. Sometimes bad things happen to good people when there aren’t any cops around.