news-record.com

The city ordinance lists seven activities that indicate someone is illegally "loitering for the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity."

And each one of those activities could be completely innocent, N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. of Greensboro noted last week.

Hunter, writing for a three-judge panel, found the loitering ordinance so broad and vague that it amounts to a violation of constitutional rights.

The case examined Winston-Salem's ordinance, but Greensboro and several other North Carolina cities have almost identical codes -- with one key difference, according to Greensboro City Attorney Terry Wood. The loitering activities must be done "with the intent" of violating state drug laws.

For example, it's not a violation for someone to stand around "at a location frequented by persons who use, possess or sell drugs" -- unless he intends to use, possess or sell drugs himself.

The court struck down the Winston-Salem ordinance because it doesn't require proof of intent. Without that, Hunter wrote, it "attempts to curb drug activity by criminalizing constitutionally permissible conduct."

Loitering laws must be carefully constructed to avoid conflicts with individual rights. Greensboro ordinances prohibit loitering only when the activity infringes on someone else's rights or when it's associated with otherwise illegal activity.

The general anti-loitering ordinance reads: "It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy the streets or sidewalks of the city in such a way as to obstruct or interfere with the free passage into or out of any public business, sidewalk, or private property."

A crowd congregating on a sidewalk or in front of a business might make someone feel as if his way is blocked. In reality, could he pass through freely? Enforcement requires careful evaluation of the circumstances and sound judgment. After all, Greensboro residents should have the right to gather on a street corner and discuss the results of last week's city elections.

Loitering doesn't necessarily amount to evidence of drug activity, Hunter wrote. Under Winston-Salem's ordinance, police might make an arrest anyway. In Greensboro, rightly, police have to surmise some criminal intent. That makes this city's ordinance more legally sound than Winston-Salem's.

Sometimes the wrong people hang out in the wrong places. They may look menacing. They may be bad for business. They may be headed for trouble, eventually. People might wish they'd go somewhere else.

Yet, they have rights, and the courts must protect their rights. As long as people aren't up to something illegal, or interfering with anyone, Greensboro says loitering is no offense. Winston-Salem took a stricter view but failed to distinguish criminal activity from harmless behavior.

"We have a pretty high comfort level with our ordinance," Wood said of Greensboro's legal staff. The public should, too, as long as it's wisely enforced.