The ordinance does not define "loitering." In Molinari v. State, 217 Md. 282, 142 A.2d 583 (1958), this Court discussed "loitering" as it appeared in Md. Code (1957) Art. 2B, ยง 120(b). The subsection, applicable to Allegany County, declared it to be unlawful for one granted a license to sell alcoholic beverages "to allow any minor or minors . . . to loaf or loiter about the place of business for which such license is issued."
Both of these propositions fail. As pointed out in Molinari v. State, 217 Md. 282, 142 A.2d 583, 586 [3, 4], "loitering" involves both time and purpose. Here the evidence showed only the time spent upon the licensed premises.
Therefore, the statute fails to meet the due process requirement that fair notice of the forbidden conduct be given. See also State v. Hodges, 254 Or. 21, 457 P.2d 491 (1969); State v. Martinez, 85 Wn.2d 671, 538 P.2d 521 (1975). As defendant correctly points out, the word "loiters" has been variously defined as " 'to lag behind,' " People v. Weger, 251 Cal.App.2d 584, 59 Cal Rptr 661 (1967), cert denied 389 U.S. 1047 (1968); "loafing," Molinari v. State, 217 Md. 282, 142 A.2d 583 (1958); "to linger," Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 325 Mass. 519, 91 N.E.2d 666 (1950); "to hinder," People v. Berger, 169 NYS 319 (Gen Sess N Y Co 1918). In view of the uncertainty of these definitions, defendant's query is apt: "If one lags behind, the question raised is, lags behind, what or whom? More subtly, if mere presence is not proscribed, when does lawful presence become unlawful loitering?
The employment of entertainers under the age of 18 falls within the ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the statute "employed or permitted to work in any capacity whatsoever." Molinari v. State, 142 A.2d 583, 585 (Md. 1958). Thus, the employment of an entertainer under the age of 18, in an area where the main purpose of the area is the sale of nonintoxicating beverages (3.2 beer), is prohibited by 37 O.S. 243 (1985).