Issues of the Case

The initial purpose of the case was to dispute Chicago Gang Congregation Ordinance which targeted “Criminal Street Gang members” from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance. (Chicago v. Morales, 1999). Out of the 13 judges on The Illinois State Supreme Court two basically voted in favor of ordinance constitutionality, feeling as though the ordinance had validity, while eleven ruled against. Once this was done, earlier cases were reversed. The reason the 11 ruled against the ordinance is because the ordinance violated due process impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties ( Chicago v. Morales, 1999). Roughly translated it allowed the police to profile, and uses their discretion as to who was a gang member and who was not. This violated a person’s freedom to be in a public space. This being such a vague definition doesn’t show what has merit, and gave the police the right to determine what did. In the case of, (Kolender v. Lawson, 1983). Lawson was arrested on 15 occasions, only to be prosecuted twice and convicted once. This display how vague the ordinance is and how easy on can show “apparent purpose”, meaning an individual can prove they have a reason to be in a public space.