The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled last month that a Chester, Pa., ordinance making it illegal to loiter in a "high drug activity area" is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2-1 that the ordinance is too vague. The judges also decided that the city had enforced the law in a manner that violated a teenager's Fourt Amendment rights.

However, the panel rejected the theory, endorsed by Lawrence Crews, now in his 20s, and his lawyer Jon Auritt, that the ordiance was overbroad.

The panel reversed the decision of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court on the vagueness and Fourth Amendment claims, while it affirmed the lower court's decision on the overbreadth and damages claims. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the city of Chester and dismissed Mr. Crews' case with prejudice.

While the ordinance was not vague for failing to give fair notice -- a "person of reasonable intelligence" could in fact read the law and know what constituted a violation -- Commonwealth Court decided the law did lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Specifically, the ordinance did not define "lawful and reasonable explanation," which was apparently how a person could avoid charges if confronted by police. It also did not specify how a person could comply with a "police dispersal order," as the ordinance stated it was unlawful to remain or return to one of the high-drug zones after being approached by the polic, the panel said.

The Commonwealth Court took some of its cues from aU.S. Supreme Court decision in which the high court said the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine was the requirement of establishing minimal enforcement guidelines, not actual notice.

Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Rochelle S. Friedman, writing for the majority, said the ordinance "affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens who wish to use the public streets," borrowing language from a 1999 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision.

Mr. Crews, who was not convicted of any criminal charges, also argued that the city violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures because he was arrested without probable cause.

The panel agreed, noting the record showed the city had applied its ordinance to make "fleeing" from a high drug activity area, without anything else, a crime.

First Published: February 13, 2012, 5:00 a.m.