In Commonwealth v. Asamoah (2002), 809 A.2d 943, 2002 PA Super 320, the court struck down a loitering ordinance, finding that the ordinance failed to define or specify what acts demonstrated an intent to enter into an illegal drug transaction in violation of the ordinance. In Asamoah, the ordinance at issue prohibited a person from loitering "in any public or private place at a time, or under any circumstance or in such a manner as to: Commit acts that demonstrate an intent or desire to enter into or encourage third parties to engage in a drug transaction." Codified Ordinances of the City of York, General Offenses Code, 713.02. The defendant in Asamoah was observed standing on a public sidewalk holding money in his hand. He was standing near another person who had his back to the police officer who made the arrest in that case. As the officer approached, the defendant turned and walked away. The person who had been standing next to the defendant walked in a different direction and threw down a plastic baggie that contained an off-white substance that was not crack cocaine. The officer and his partner circled the block in their squad car and observed the defendant on a different street, still holding money in his hand. The police officer arrested the defendant pursuant to the loitering ordinance, for committing acts demonstrating an intent or desire to enter into a drug transaction. The defendant was not convicted of possessing contraband substances nor was he observed possessing any contraband substances, according to the case. The Asamoah court held that the anti-loitering ordinance provided "no guidance as to what constitutes an act demonstrating the "intent or desire to enter into a drug transaction.' Thus, police officers are free to order any person to 'move on or disperse," as they please, pursuant to subsection (c) of the ordinance. The ordinance, therefore, constitutes a "vague" law because it impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to police officers for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis." Asamoah, supra, at P11. See also People v. Bright (1988), 71 N.Y.2d 376, 520 N.E.2d 1355, 526 N.Y.S.2d 66 (holding that a statute that merely prohibits loitering, without more, is unconstitutionally vague).