Rule of the Law

The main precedent of the case was based off of (Kolander v. Lawson, 1983) at least I think so. (Kolander v. Lawson, 1983) is a California case that focused on a loiter or wonder giving a credible and reliable account for their purpose, when a officer ask for proof. Once proof is established a person is no longer perceived as loitering. This to me was the main example the Supreme Court used for its ruling. It touch a little on the other prior case saying that general order 92 – 4 is unconstitutional and violates due process , while addressing the vagueness of the ordinance. It also gave officers too much power in deciding who is compliant and who is not. This to me is a form of profiling and shouldn’t and isn’t tolerated in today’s society. Chicago police have other means for dealing with gang members and general order 92 – 4 isn’t one of them. This was a well thought out flop causing other latter cases to be appealed. Chicago’s interpretation of the statute cased more damage than good. Apparently this isn’t the first time the statute has been on the chopping block; from my understanding it’s depending on how you perceive the meaning can make it a just statute of a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution. A quote from the case is, "we must assume that the ordinance means what it says and that it has no application to loiterers whose purpose is apparent." (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)