Policy Text
Roll Call Training Bulletin
Produced by: Betty Allison
Prepared by: Officer Sameer Sood , IAD Sam Somers Jr ., Chief of Police
Volume 26
April 9, 2014
Sacramento City Code Section 9.04.030: General Loitering
Issue :
The Constitutionality of General Loitering Ordinance .
The Sacramento Police Department has asked for an analysis about the enforceability of
Sacramento City Code (SCC) sec tion 9.04.030, an ordinance regarding general loitering.
Background :
The leading case on point is the United States Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Chicago v.
Morales (U.S. 1999) 527 U.S. 41. Chicago had a city loitering ordinance that prohibited k nown
gang members from loitering with even one additional person, whether that second person was a
gang member or not. The court found that the ordinance was too broad and that the language
within the ordinance gave too much unbridled discretion to police officers enforcing the statue.
In addition, the court found that “ The United States recognizes the freedom to loiter for
innocent purposes . It is part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.”
The Supreme Court ru led that for a loitering statue to be constitutional , the “loitering” in
question/observed must be criminal in nature. Examples of such illegal loitering would be
loitering with intent to commit prostitution (653.22 PC) and loitering with intent to commit a
narcotic offense (11532 HS).
Furthermore, in Skilling v. United States (2010, 561 US 358), a “void for vagueness” doctrine
was applied which serves two purpose s regarding loitering. First, all persons receive fair notice
of what is punishable and what is not. Second, the vagueness doctrine helps prevent arbitrary
enforcement of the laws and arbitrary prosecutions.
As a result of the two aforementioned cases, Sacramento City Code section 9.04.030 is rendered
constitutionally impermissible and officers should not attempt to enforce it in any manner.
What this means to you :
Essentially, if a subject(s) is observed loitering in a specific area (posted or not) and no other
criminal activity is observed , officers cannot cite or detain individuals under SCC 9.04.030.
This does not, however, prevent an officer from contacting loitering subjects consensually. In
addition, if the loitering is coupled with additional suspicious or illegal activity , officers are not
prohibited from making contact. Basically , develop your own probable cause to detain rather
than solely detaining a subject based on “no loitering .”
What if a property owner/responsible party calls PD regarding loitering subjects?
When a property owner /responsible party calls PD regarding a loiterin g subject (s) and request s
to have the subject (s) removed from the property, officers are to use the same procedures (if
applicable) as defined in SPD General Order 538.02, Trespass Violations.