'stormtroopers?' Ins, Advocate Differ On 
Immigrants' Treatment 
Roundup Of 137 At Scranton Meat-packing 
Plant Was `outlandish,' Volunteer Says. Not So, 
Says An Ins Director.

Activist `outraged' By Racist Posters 
The Fliers Contain Verbal Attacks On Black People And Bear The Address Of The 
`aryan Racial Loyalist Party.'

By P. DOUGLAS FILAROSKI; Times Leader Staff Writer
 Thursday, December 15, 1994 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 1A 





WILKES-BARRE -- The city's new loitering ordinance failed to hold its
ground in court Wednesday, with a district justice ruling in favor of the
first two people cited under the controversial law. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Despite their disappointment, city officials said District Justice Michael
Collins' decision Wednesday should not slow enforcement of a law that has
already faced its share of scrutiny. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "I don't think it's going to affect the law at all," City Attorney William
Finnegan said. "It's unfortunate that the first challenge is not upheld. But
it shouldn't change anything." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Collins' ruling on the first case of its kind locally found Sherry Ogan,
46, and Paul White, 50, both of Wilkes-Barre, not guilty of loitering in front
of South Main Plaza on Nov. 11. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 A police officer said he observed the pair that day hanging around,
drinking, and listening to loud music for about 30 minutes in a parking lot
off the main thoroughfare of South Main Street. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Citing the law's language, the officer said the activity caused "alarm for
the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." He said passersby had to
walk around the individuals. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 In making his decision, Collins disagreed, saying if the activity had truly
caused alarm, the officer would not have waited 30 minutes to make the arrest,
and would not have left the scene twice during that time. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 White was found guilty of consuming alcohol in public. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The ruling is significant, considering the law's enforceability was raised
as an important issue during the City Council debate about the law this
summer. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Mayor Lee Namey vetoed an original version, calling the law "way too vague"
and potentially difficult to enforce. But the council reworked the law and
Namey eventually lent his support. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The American Civil Liberties Union had also criticized the proposed
ordinance on grounds it posed a threat to constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 At the time, ACLU Legislative Director Larry Frankel said the group doesn't
generally support loitering laws because they tend to be selectively enforced
against the poor and minorities. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Frankel declined to comment on the first citations handed out by the city
when contacted two weeks ago, saying he needed to review the facts. He did say
the group is "interested" in the case. Frankel could not be reached Wednesday. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Finnegan said Collins' ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the law
itself, only with the facts of this particular case. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Council member Thomas McGroarty, who sponsored the law, agreed. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 "He didn't say it was unconstitutional. He just didn't think these people
broke the law," McGroarty said. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Two Accused Of Loitering Win Their Case 
Despite The Loss In Court, City Officials Remain Confident Their Controversial 
Law Will Withstand Further Challenges

Two Accused Of Loitering Win Their Case Despite The Loss In Court, City Officials Remain Confident Their Controversial Law Will Withstand Further Challenges