ESPOSITO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (56 total)

• State v. Ecker, 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975)
  …S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942) ; Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 [*108] U.S. 87, 86 S.Ct. 211, 15 L.Ed.2d 176 (1965); Camarco v. City of Orange, 61 N.J. 463, 295 A. 2d 353 (1972); People v. Solomon, 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867, cert. den. 415 U.S. 951, 94 S.Ct. 1476, 39 L.Ed.2d 567 (1974); People of Detroit v. Ritchey, 25 Mich.App. 98, 181 N.E. 2d 87 (1970). In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New Hampshire statute which forbade any person to ad…
• Watts v. State, 463 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1985)
  …safety, was not sufficient to support a conviction under section 856.021. Id. at 111. In contrast the California loitering statute, section 647(e),2 had been construed in People v. Solomon, 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 951, 94 S.Ct. 1476, 39 L.Ed.2d 567 (1974), to require the following three elements for conviction: “(1) loitering on the streets, (2) refusal to identify and account on request, (3) in circumstances involving the public safety.” Id. at 432, 108 Cal.Rptr…
• State v. Rash, 458 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
  …ifornia courts had construed the requirement of identification to be "primary and controlling.” 311 So. 2d at 108. . For instance, in Ecker, our supreme court relied in part on People v. Solomon, 33 Cal. App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867, cert, denied, 415 U.S. 951, 94 S.Ct. 1476, 39 L.Ed.2d 567 (1974), wherein the Court of Appeals for the Second District of California upheld § 647(e) from the claim that it was unconstitutionally vague.…