## Facts

- Gary A. Lainer, a Massachusetts veterinarian, held two $18 Boston Red Sox tickets and sought to sell one extra ticket outside Fenway Park at face value.
- On July 31, 1999, Lainer walked near Fenway Park calling out for a buyer, completed a sale for $18 (accepting a $20 bill and attempting to provide change), and was then seized by Boston police officers.
- Lainer alleged officers used force, handcuffed him, transported him to a police station, and subjected him to booking procedures.
- Police charged Lainer with (1) violating Massachusetts’s anti-scalping statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 185A; (2) hawking and peddling without a license, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 101, § 14; and (3) occupying a public way without a permit under a municipal ordinance.
- Lainer was detained for roughly two and a half hours and released with a notice to appear; the criminal charges were later dismissed.
- Lainer brought a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims, alleging the Boston Police Department maintained a practice of arresting anyone selling tickets outside Fenway Park regardless of price or whether the seller was a professional reseller.
- Lainer moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the City and police officials from enforcing their interpretation of § 185A against casual, face-value sellers.

## Issues

1. Whether Lainer showed a substantial likelihood of success that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 185A, properly construed, does not criminalize an isolated, face-value resale by a person not “engag[ing] in the business” of selling tickets.
2. Whether Lainer satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief to bar Boston and its police from enforcing § 185A (and related provisions) against similarly situated casual sellers pending final judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted preliminary injunctive relief in substantial part.
- The court concluded Lainer showed a strong likelihood of success that § 185A’s “engag[ing] in the business” language does not reach a casual, isolated resale of a single ticket at or below face value.
- The court enjoined the City of Boston and police officials from enforcing § 185A (and related enforcement measures aimed at the same conduct) against individuals whose conduct is comparable to Lainer’s pending further proceedings.
- The court declined to provide preliminary relief to the full extent requested, but the injunction’s central effect was to stop blanket treatment of all ticket resales outside Fenway as illegal under § 185A.

## Legal Principles

- In construing a criminal statute, courts give operative effect to limiting language; “engag[ing] in the business” ordinarily denotes a continuing, profit-oriented enterprise rather than a one-time, casual transaction.
- Enforcement practices that effectively expand a statute beyond its text and purpose may support claims of unlawful arrest and unreasonable seizure when arrests lack a valid legal basis.
- Preliminary injunctive relief may issue where the plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from ongoing risk of unlawful arrest/prosecution, a balance of hardships favoring relief, and consistency with the public interest in lawful enforcement.
- Anti-scalping laws directed at professional resellers and speculators do not necessarily cover ordinary ticket holders attempting to recoup the face price of an unused ticket.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily barred Boston from applying the Massachusetts anti-scalping statute to casual, face-value, single-ticket resales by individuals not acting as ticket-selling businesses, finding a strong likelihood that blanket enforcement against such conduct exceeded the statute and risked unconstitutional seizures.


Lainer v. City of Boston, 95 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D. Mass. 2000)