Culpeper should be careful with no-loitering enforcement
Published: April 14, 2008
Regarding April 6’s front-page story “Sign of the Times,” the newly enacted Virginia loitering law reads: “Pedestrians shall not loiter on any bridge or in any portion of the right-of-way of any highway where loitering has been determined by the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner or the local governing body of any city or town to present a public safety hazard and on which the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner or the governing body of any city or town has posted signs prohibiting such action. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a traffic violation.”
Not only because Steve Jenkins so eagerly wants it, Town Council is well advised to heed Mr. Tim Freilich’s free advice “to tread lightly” regarding acquiring and posting (expensive) “no loitering” signs along Bus. 29 and enforcing this law against day laborers or anyone else.
As Mr. Freilich (legal director with the Legal Aid Justice Center) so rightly points out, day laborers seeking work are not “loitering.” And, they are no more of a safety concern than is any citizen standing or walking beside the road.
The legal definition of loitering is “to linger or hang around in a public place where one has no ‘particular or legal purpose’.”
Chicago enacted a no-loitering law aimed at gang members standing about with no recognizable legitimate purpose. In Chicago v Morales (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. It ruled that loitering is a fundamental right and that the Chicago law was too vague.
Unlike gang members, day laborers seeking work not only have a “legal purpose,” but such a purpose universally recognized by Culpeper’s general public. Even all our rabidly anti-immigrant folks consistently observe that they are day laborers seeking work.
Are these off-road “pedestrians” creating a safety hazard or committing a “traffic offense,” or is it the vehicles that stop along side the road?
The Virginia law is as or even more vague than was the Chicago law. Yet Councilman Jenkins wants to go ahead and post signs even before the law goes into effect and before any safety issues have been documented!
It indicates to me once again that he’s an easily excitable hothead without a modicum of common sense! Lord (and Mayor Rimeikis): SCJ (save Culpeper from Jenkins).
Want to find out more? Google: Chicago v. Morales for the Supreme Court ruling. Compare the wording of the Chicago law to VA’s. Hold on to your wallet and vote wisely.
John Kyff is a resident of Culpeper.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Patriot 6:43 AM, first your logic has consistently been rejected by the Courts. The citizenship status of anyone does not matter to constitutional protections that apply to everyone equally. Loitering like seeking work is a fundamental human right. Second, while some day laborers may be undocumented all certainly are not. Third, if someone is ‘loitering’ how could they possibly cause a driver to ‘stop abruptly’ or to ‘commit another traffic violation?’ The ‘devil made me do it’ excuse is not a valid argument in court. Posting signs is not optional but is required by the statute. But none of this matters since the statute itself has already been declared unconstitutional.
Yes they do have legal purpose Patriot. Federal courts have ruled so. NY, NJ and CA towns sued and ruled against. Judge said Police were picking out Hispanic individuals and that day laborers had the right to be there. Equal protection under the law. We can disagree with that but they have the same rights as you and I. Chicago vs. Morales loitering ordinance ruled unconstitutional. Opa stated VA ruling. Steve Jenkins has never researched anything he mentions. Just like Hazleton when he said he wanted an ordinance like theirs. See where it got them? The driver who stops is breaking the traffic code of stopping on the highway. The day laborer is not causing the safety issue. They were better off in the shopping center parking lot for now. Laws enforced? We must be careful to avoid litigation. I don’t care how mad or angry anyone gets when it comes to illegal immigration. Refuse to use your head and think responsibly on town council like Jenkins and watch us get sued. Don’t believe me? It’s happened all across the U. S. They are here illegally but are protected under the constitution. Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, not violate it. When we do you can expect the legal bills to pile up. Just wait and see how much your taxes will rise. We are not illegal supporters. We support the law and that we enforce it by the guidelines of the law. If people can’t understand it then I feel sorry for them.
If the day laborers seeking work are in the country illegaly then they are violating US laws, so they don’t have a “legal purpose” for being there.
If their being there, causes a motorist to stop abruptly or otherwise commit another traffic violation then the day laborers have contibuted to the traffic violation and pose a threat to the motoring public.
I don’t see posting warning signs as a significant problem, as a matter of fact, I see it as prudent to notify the people of the change in the law.
I always chuckle when I see the supporters of illegal aliens resort to name calling and slandering of the folks that want the laws enforced.
In 2003 the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statute Councilman Jenkins relies on (46.2-930) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to constitutionally protected conduct such as ‘loitering.‘ That the VA legislature merely added highway right-of-ways to where it may be enforced the statute is still unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable everywhere in VA regardless of hazards. Case closed. (Goggle: Lytle v Doyle 326 F.3d 463)
Advertisement