However, we also agree with defendants that portions of the injunction are impermissibly vague.
“Twenty-five foot restriction. Appellants also challenge the provision of the injunction that prohibits them from ‘[s]tanding, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing anywhere in public view within 25 (twenty-five) feet of any other [person subject to the injunction] engaged in any of the [activities proscribed by the injunction].’ We agree that this provision does not give to the appellants fair warning of prohibited conduct. There is nothing in the record that indicates that any of the appellants are sufficiently familiar with all those subject to the injunction so that compliance with this provision would not be a haphazard, guessing adventure.”
In addition, that portion of the injunction which prohibits defendants from “engaging in, beckoning to stop, or engaging male or female passersby in conversation” is broader “than necessary to accomplish the goal” of suppressing prostitution-related activities.
“Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should modify this aspect of the permanent injunction to ensure that it does not encompass appellants’ relatives and friends (that is, persons with whom appellants had social relationships before the activity described by the restriction).”
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Manian, J., Fine, J.
For Appellant: Jerome F. Buting, Brookfield; Pamela Moorshead, Brookfield
For Respondent: David R. Halbrooks, Milwaukee; Genevieve E. O’Sullivan-Crowley, Milwaukee