Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Criminal Law

405 U.S. 156 (1972)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawvaguenessvagrancyvoid for vaguenessfair noticearbitrary enforcementpolice discretiondue process

Facts

The case involved five consolidated prosecutions under Jacksonville's vagrancy ordinance, including charges such as "prowling by auto," "vagabonds," "loitering," "common thief," and "disorderly loitering on street." The stipulated facts showed that several defendants were engaged in facially ordinary conduct, such as riding in a car after leaving a restaurant, waiting for a ride while seeking employment, arriving at a residence, driving home, or walking on a street. In multiple instances, the police found no contraband or evidence of a specific crime, and some arrests rested on officers' disbelief of the defendants' explanations or on reputations such as being a thief. The ordinance broadly classified many kinds of persons, including wanderers, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, and persons living on the earnings of their wives or minor children, as vagrants punishable as Class D offenders.

Issue

Whether Jacksonville's vagrancy ordinance is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because it is void for vagueness. Specifically, the question was whether the ordinance failed to give ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct and permitted arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by police.

Rule

A criminal law is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, or if it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions by leaving basic enforcement decisions to unfettered police discretion. Broad criminal prohibitions that cover activities normally innocent by modern standards and provide no ascertainable standards of guilt violate due process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Phoenix enacts a misdemeanor ordinance making it unlawful for any "aimless wanderer" to move about public streets "without a proper purpose." One evening, Elena Ruiz is stopped after walking several blocks downtown after dinner while talking on her phone, and officers arrest her under the ordinance.

Elena challenges the ordinance under the Due Process Clause. What is the strongest argument that the ordinance is unconstitutional?

Explanation. A criminal law is void for vagueness if it does not give ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct. Terms like "aimless wanderer" and "without a proper purpose" are generalized and uncertain, and they sweep in ordinary innocent conduct such as walking after dinner. The majority emphasized that laws criminalizing wandering, strolling, or loafing by such vague standards violate due process. (Derived from Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972).)