# City of Seattle v. Drew

> Washington Supreme Court · February 2, 1967 · 70 Wash. 2d 405

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551626

## Case

- **Full name:** The City of Seattle, Appellant, v. James Drew, Respondent
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 2, 1967
- **Citations:** 70 Wash. 2d 405; 423 P.2d 522; 25 A.L.R. 3d 827; 1967 Wash. LEXIS 1074
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hale
- **Judges:** Weaver, Hale
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551626

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding statute prohibiting wandering at night violated due process where it did not distinguish between “conduct calculated to harm and that which is essentially innocent”

## Opinion text

Hale, J.
(concurring specially) — Save for its reference to the Model Penal Code, Proposed Official Draft § 250.6, American Law Institute (1962), I concur in and have, accordingly, signed the majority opinion.
I am reluctant to recommend the quoted section as a model of precision and clarity in defining criminal loitering and prowling, because I think the quoted definition suffers from the same qualities of vagueness and imprecision which we found in the Seattle city ordinance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551626. Public record. Not legal advice.