Newsstand - Standing on a sidewalk in Times Square is now grounds for arrest!

A Times Square Pedestrian Is Giving No Ground

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
ALBANY, Oct. 17 — Millions of people have paused to stand amid the hustle, bustle and neon of Times Square.

And sure, those who pause — to gawk, talk or eat a gyro — can slow the progress of pedestrians around them.

But when Matthew Jones of Brooklyn lingered on the corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, gabbing with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by, something unusual happened: He was arrested for it.

A police officer said Mr. Jones was impeding other pedestrians and charged him with disorderly conduct.

Mr. Jones is not taking the charges lying down (so to speak). After trying twice to get the charges dismissed, he has taken his case to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, which heard arguments here on Wednesday.

In the prosecution’s view, it appears, the innocent do not dawdle. According to the original complaint against Mr. Jones, the officer “observed defendant along with a number of other individuals standing around” on a public sidewalk in June 2004. Mr. Jones was “not moving, and that as a result of defendants’ behavior, numerous pedestrians in the area had to walk around defendants.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/nyregion/18movealong.html

Sorry to say, they should throw the book at him. I would love see people conversing at the entrance/exits to escalators arrested, as well as people blocking the aisles in stores, malls, or my place of work. :mad:

"Disorderly conduct" is the worst, most inane, and stupid charge. It should be illegal to so charge someone as such, as it can be used by the cops to bully anyone, anytime, anywhere, and it appears to have been used to that effect here.

I'm as annoyed as the next person by those who just stop to stand around confusedly in the middle of an escalator entrance, sidewalk, etc., but to arrest someone for that?!

Did this guy spin around and have his arms held victoriously above his head while shouting "Yatta!"?

A Times Square Pedestrian Is Giving No Ground

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
ALBANY, Oct. 17 — Millions of people have paused to stand amid the hustle, bustle and neon of Times Square.

And sure, those who pause — to gawk, talk or eat a gyro — can slow the progress of pedestrians around them.

But when Matthew Jones of Brooklyn lingered on the corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, gabbing with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by, something unusual happened: He was arrested for it.

A police officer said Mr. Jones was impeding other pedestrians and charged him with disorderly conduct.

Mr. Jones is not taking the charges lying down (so to speak). After trying twice to get the charges dismissed, he has taken his case to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, which heard arguments here on Wednesday.

In the prosecution’s view, it appears, the innocent do not dawdle. According to the original complaint against Mr. Jones, the officer “observed defendant along with a number of other individuals standing around” on a public sidewalk in June 2004. Mr. Jones was “not moving, and that as a result of defendants’ behavior, numerous pedestrians in the area had to walk around defendants.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/nyregion/18movealong.html
So standing on a public sidewalk is now grounds for arrest? Unreal. Move along comrade - nothing to see here........

Great. Just Great.

If they're going to arrest this guy for simply standing with a few friends and blocking a few pedestrians who had to walk around them, then surely they should arrest the Peruvian bands, break dancers, etc. who attract huge crowds and who thoroughly block the same sidewalks.

If they're going to arrest this guy for simply standing with a few friends and blocking a few pedestrians who had to walk around them, then surely they should arrest the Peruvian bands, break dancers, etc. who attract huge crowds and who thoroughly block the same sidewalks.

Please do! @:-)

That Peruvian flute music would give me a brain tumor if I was forced to listen to it for very long. :mad:

Did this guy spin around and have his arms held victoriously above his head while shouting "Yatta!"?
bwahahahah!!!! :D

That Peruvian flute music would give me a brain tumor if I was forced to listen to it for very long. :mad:

Sadly there is a Peruvian pan-flute band in every major city in the world, so another one would be flown in as a replacement. :D

New york used to have a loitering law but I'm not sure what the status of it is at this time. I don't get the disorderly conduct charge unless he was mouthing off at the cop if the cop asked him to move to the side..
Cheers
Howie

Sorry to say, they should throw the book at him. I would love see people conversing at the entrance/exits to escalators arrested, as well as people blocking the aisles in stores, malls, or my place of work. :mad:
I agree. I hate that too.

Move to the side and clear the walkway.

So let's see...standing around and blocking people from moving forward, is now reason for arrest.....the TSA better watch out, then? ^

Cop: Sir, please move along - you and your friends are blocking the sidewalk.

Man: What law am I breaking?

Cop: Municipal Code 1203(b)(iii) - impeding pedestrian flow.

Man: Yeah. Right.

Cop: Sir, I am citing you for RCU. May I see some ID, please?

Man: RCU? What's that?

Cop: Rude, crude, and ugly. That's law enforcement-speak for Disorderly Conduct.

etc. etc.

Based on what I read, I would've made the same decision the NYPD officer made.

This thread has little to do with travel safety or security so we're shipping it off to Newstand.

Please follow it there.

Thanks.

_______________________________

Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

Was not the woman arrested for cursing at her toilet also in NY? If so, NY is a very strange state.

I thought Times Square was a tourist spot where you're supposed to stop and look!

Would this be precedence to get gate lice arrested? I am so tired of using my Boarding Stick™.

This is a sad commentary on the unnecessary au-thor-i-tah we citizens have submitted ourselves to. :(

I actually think that walking in Manhattan slower than 6MPH is a felony. Standing is definitely a crime.

Two more paragraphs from the Times article:

After spending the night in jail, Mr. Jones contested the main charge and asked that it be dismissed. When the judge demurred, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation the next day and received no further sentence. But he soon filed an appeal, arguing that there had been no basis for the arrest in the first place.

Nancy E. Little, Mr. Jones’s lawyer, said that neither the police nor the prosecutors claimed that he was doing anything other than standing on the sidewalk with friends — an activity, she said, that is not entirely without precedent in Manhattan.

Here are a few things not yet discussed:

He pleaded guilty after being locked up for a few hours and the judge gave him no further jail time. So, why is he appealing? Is he a citizen outraged at the loss of his civil liberties? How can he afford to take not one, but at least two appeals, finally arriving at the highest court in the state?

First, Nancy Little works for the Legal Aid Society, the local equivalent of the public defender which is paid for by government funding. That's how the defendant can afford the appeals.

Assuming he didn't turn indigent overnight, it looks like Legal Aid screwed up big time by allowing him to plead guilty. A plea of guilty is the equivalent of a conviction after trial as that great legal scholar Sen. Craig has recently learned.

If the Court of Appeals reverses this conviction, I wonder how they will interpret the appropriate statute, New York Penal Law § 240.20 which says that:

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

. . .

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;

. . ."


This will be interesting.

If it is now a misdemeanor to stand in Times Square, New Years Eve should be quite a bit more interesting....:eek:

"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

. . .

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;

. . ."

Perhaps he was recklessly creating the risk of annoyance.

Well, was the officer's order lawful? What if the guy had been walking slowly and the officer said to walk faster. Would that have been lawful? After all, people walking slowly are obstructing the flow of pedestrian traffic.

This law could be used to arrest pretty much anyone.
Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Disorderly conduct is a violation.

But why was he arrested? What did he do to stand out so much? Driving 85 in a 65 is far more dangerous than standing on a corner in Times Square, yet they only issue tickets for that. You're only arrested if there are other circumstances: drunk driving, posession of drugs, acting a fool to the officer, etc.

I agree that it's annoying as all hell when people are oblivious to their surroundings and expect everyone else to go around but it's not arrest worthy just because it annoys me, as others here have suggested. My guess is that if we were to arrest everyone who annoys those folks, they'd be the only ones still walking the streets.

Sadly there is a Peruvian pan-flute band in every major city in the world, so another one would be flown in as a replacement. :D

I think it's actually the same Peruvian band in every city in the world.

I agree that it's annoying as all hell when people are oblivious to their surroundings and expect everyone else to go around but it's not arrest worthy just because it annoys me, as others here have suggested. My guess is that if we were to arrest everyone who annoys those folks, they'd be the only ones still walking the streets.

Lots of people are annoyed by people trying to walk faster. On a crowded sidewalk everybody walks at a speed that either obstructs pedestrian flow or has to occasionally bump into others (battery) to get ahead.

Cops slowly walking down the sidewalk or through train stations (GCT comes to mind) are annoying and obstruct pedestrian flow. They should arrest themselves.

Update:http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/mans-conviction-for-standing-on-sidewalk-is-overturned/#more-1429


The Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, threw out the conviction today of a man who was arrested for standing and not moving on a Times Square corner in June 2004.
As Nicholas Confessore has reported on City Room and in The Times’s print edition, the man, Matthew Jones, was on corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, chatting with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by.
.
.
.
“Nothing in the information indicates how the defendant, when he stood in the middle of a sidewalk at 2:01 a.m., had the intent to or recklessly created a risk of causing ‘public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm,’” Judge Ciparick wrote in a six-page decision [pdf].
She later added: “Something more than a mere inconvenience of pedestrians is required to support the charge. Otherwise, any person who happens to stop on a sidewalk — whether to greet another, to seek directions or simply to regain one’s bearings — would be subject to prosecution under this statute.”

When I was growing up, Chicago police had something called the "sayso law".

Officer: "You're under arrest."

Citizen: "Why?"

Officer: "'cuz I say so"

Cop: Sir, please move along - you and your friends are blocking the sidewalk.

Man: What law am I breaking?

Cop: Municipal Code 1203(b)(iii) - impeding pedestrian flow.

Man: Yeah. Right.

Cop: Sir, I am citing you for RCU. May I see some ID, please?

Man: RCU? What's that?

Cop: Rude, crude, and ugly. That's law enforcement-speak for Disorderly Conduct.

etc. etc.

Update:http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/mans-conviction-for-standing-on-sidewalk-is-overturned/#more-1429


The Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, threw out the conviction today of a man who was arrested for standing and not moving on a Times Square corner in June 2004.
As Nicholas Confessore has reported on City Room and in The Times’s print edition, the man, Matthew Jones, was on corner of 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in the early morning of June 12, 2004, chatting with friends as other pedestrians tried to get by.
.
.
.
“Nothing in the information indicates how the defendant, when he stood in the middle of a sidewalk at 2:01 a.m., had the intent to or recklessly created a risk of causing ‘public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm,’” Judge Ciparick wrote in a six-page decision [pdf].
She later added: “Something more than a mere inconvenience of pedestrians is required to support the charge. Otherwise, any person who happens to stop on a sidewalk — whether to greet another, to seek directions or simply to regain one’s bearings — would be subject to prosecution under this statute.”
Her explaination sounds very reasonable to me.

I still wonder what the justification for a disorderly conduct charge was though.

We live in a world where the police are looking for anything "suspicious." A person standing around, not moving may be "looking for terrorism opportunities" or something. Anything out of the usual can be cause for a police officer to interfere with someone. Once upon a time, most people were assumed to be decent, good people. Now everyone is assumed to be a potential terrorist, until proven otherwise.

i think its just another case of the cops not using common sense.if it would have been a friend or family member of one of the cops it would they would never have been arrested.