Decision of the Court

The decision of the court was to hold the ruling, stating the ordinance was un- constitutional and violated rights, while giving to much control to officers. The Supreme Court focused on this part of the ordinance, The three features of the ordinance that, the city argues, limit the officer’s discretion–(1) it does not permit issuance of a dispersal order to anyone who is moving along or who has an apparent purpose; (2) it does not permit an arrest if individuals obey a dispersal order; and (3) no order can issue unless the officer reasonably believes that one of the loiterers is a gang member–are insufficient. Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court is correct that General Order 92-4 is not a sufficient limitation on police discretion. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 575. Pp. 16-20. Generally speaking that Chicago interpreted the meaning of loiter something other than what it was intended and worked the law into their favor, even though, it violated the rights of law abiding citizens. This is a classic of the good cop, bad cop on the cover of the ordinance seems like it is helping everyday citizens, but it targets them as well. Most of us who are unaware of laws that are being passed we should take a closer look at what is going on around them, I included.