New York State Loitering Laws

Here is a list of circumstances criminalized by the New York City Act: The New York Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes this bill with respect to provisions that create the crimes of aggressive begging and loitering for the purpose of aggressively begging and empower cities to prohibit sitting or lying on public sidewalks. Begging and the use of public sidewalks for non-criminal activities are rights protected by the Constitutions of the United States and New York. Our sidewalks, parks and other public spaces are and will traditionally remain gathering and communication places open to all. While the government can make appropriate regulations to ensure the safety and accessibility of these areas, this bill, despite its stated purpose, advocates and even codifies selective enforcement. Therefore, there is a serious risk that this legislation will be used to target disadvantaged individuals or activities rather than meet legitimate public safety and convenience needs. If you or someone you love has been accused of loitering, call our New York defense attorneys today. Our aggressive, strolling New York lawyers will fight your loitering accusations by dismantling the prosecutor`s case. Call us today for a free consultation. Whatever the accusation or crime, a complaint from the police or prosecutor should not be based solely on a single finding. In this scenario, the statement that a person was loitering for the purpose of gambling does not explain how that person was loitering or gambling. This weakness may have been overcome by the simple fact that the officer watched the accused crouch and roll dice for ten minutes. Every time the dice were rolled, people picked up or dropped money or U.S. currency.

The stated objective of the proposed legislation is to eliminate safety risks and inconveniences caused by people sitting or lying on public roads, which may deter people from frequenting facilities in industrial areas. Advocacy groups also say police are unfairly targeting trans women and women of color. A spokesman for the New York Council even called for the law to be repealed on that basis. While allegations of prostitution have declined overall, arrests in New York skyrocketed in 2018. In Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 F.2d 699 (2nd Circuit 1993), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered a challenge to New York law prohibiting loitering for the purpose of begging. In that case, the Second Circuit found that begging was a communicative activity and ruled that New York law was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. This law, which bans so-called “aggressive” begging, is yet another attempt to arrest those begging on our streets. Previous versions of the New York law punished those who loitered around begging because they had found a sexual partner and had no reason to be where they were. These laws have since been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the U.S.

Constitution. As a result, several sections of the Act were deleted. There, arrests were disproportionately concentrated in immigrant neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn. Last year, 94 percent of those arrested for strolling in New York were black or Latino. And this can have serious consequences for non-citizens. An arrest related to prostitution can result in deportation, and a sealed file can negatively impact a person`s asylum or green card application. The prohibition on loitering for the purpose of aggressive begging is even more harmful because anyone on a public highway can be arrested (even if they are not begging) if they are perceived to be on the street “for the purpose” of begging “with the intent to intimidate.” This type of provision, which requires notification by the police, is typical of bills, such as anti-loitering laws, which prohibit behavior that is in itself completely normal, acceptable and legal. This provision gives the police free rein to choose who can stay and who cannot. Only those who are first notified by the police that they have committed an offence and who do not proceed will be subject to the provisions of this section. However, there are no criteria in the bill on how public servants can choose who to advise.

However, strolling really refers to staying in a public place without having a reason to be there. And some say police are targeting women of color, trans women and sex workers, accusing them of loitering. Yes, you can be stopped by the NYPD in New York to hang out. In fact, if you wander around Manhattan, Yonkers, Brooklyn, White Plains, New City or Queens, the crime is always the same. Codified in the New York Penal Code under sections 240.35, 240.36 and 240.37. The first of these offences is a violation, while the last two offences are offences. This particular blog post is about violating New York Criminal Law 240.35. However, we will also look at the more serious criminal charges of PL 240.36 and 240.37, for which you are likely to receive an Office Appearance Ticket (ATD) if you do not have a criminal record and comply with the officers who made the arrest. Is it enough with all of the definitions of Flâner (not the actual legal version, but the reworded digestible variant), is it enough for a police officer to file a legally sufficient criminal complaint in conclusive language by simply pretending that you are loitering for the purpose of gambling, even if it was obvious at the time you played dice or cards? The short answer is simply “no.” Section 240.37 of the New York Penal Code, sometimes known as the prohibition on “walking in trans,” prohibited loitering “for the purpose of committing a prostitution offense.” The law was originally passed in 1976. While the goal was to ban loitering for prostitution, it was widely used to target law-abiding transgender and cisgender women of color. The bill also includes a provision limiting its scope to people who continue to sit or lie down after being informed by a police officer or other law enforcement officer that they are breaking the regulations. As such, the bill bears an unpleasant resemblance to the “no loitering” law, which is designed to keep “undesirables” off the road.

Laws prohibiting vagrancy, which to some extent do not require criminal activity, are unconstitutional (People v. Berck, 347 N.Y.S.2d 33 (1973) and the cases cited therein). As the Loper court pointed out, New York has many laws that prohibit behavior that intimidates or threatens its residents. Existing laws prohibiting harassment, disorderly behaviour and threats, for example, provide sufficient recourse against those who engage in begging or fail to engage in behaviour that actually constitutes a danger to the public. Loiter is a criminal complaint in New York City and has the potential to impose prison sentences that can affect a person`s employment and future prospects. The crimes of loitering in New York are codified by the New York Penal Code 240.35 to 240.37. There are severe penalties for loitering for the purpose of managing, selling or possessing drugs and for loitering for the purpose of committing a prostitution-related offence. New York`s vagrancy laws are applied to certain circumstances that New York legislators find offensive to public order rather than some sort of very broad vague catch-all, but some of the vagrancy laws have very broad language and criminalize a variety of behaviors. The bill would make it a Class B offence to engage in “aggressive begging,” that is, “begging with intent to intimidate another person into giving money or property by engaging in conduct that threatens the person being recruited, which, by its very nature, would cause a reasonable person to fear harm. The bill would also make it an offence for a person to “loiter, stay or wander for the purpose of aggressively begging.” It is important to note that if those who are 16 or 17 years old and are arrested for loitering for the purpose of a prostitution offence, alternatives to criminal punishment are offered. According to article 170.80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are three possibilities for getting rid of loitering for the purpose of prostitution. First, subject to an admission of guilt and the consent of the accused, charges may be commuted to a person who requires supervision under the Family Court Act or a specialized social services order for the problem juvenile.