Dissent

Within the case two judges ruled against the majority, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas is of the opinion that the case focuses on the rights of gang members and not the citizens of Chicago. According to Justice Thomas the ordinance is Chicago’s way of going back to the basic format of law enforcement. He states; “the ordinance does nothing more than confirm the well - established principle that the police have the duty and the power to maintain the public peace, and when necessary, to disperse groups of individuals who threaten it.” (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)In general I agree with this statement, but the issue is bigger than maintaining public peace. I feel if the ordinance was given validity it would become an open - gate to other sinister plots by city officials disguised as normal practices of law. The ordinance was considered a preventive measure in dealing with gang members, perceiving them guilty. If I’m not mistaking that is profiling. Justice Scalia argument is the same as Justice Thomas, and feels the majority is ignoring their rules on governing facial challenges. However acknowledges that Chicagoans’ are giving up certain freedoms to create peace in the streets, and I quote, "The minor limitation upon all Chicagoans seemed to them (and it seems to me) a small price to pay for liberation of their streets.” (Chicago v. Morales, 1999) I think of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Your own argument

I agree with the findings of the Supreme Court and think personally General Order 92 -4 was a disguised to hide Chicago’s true intentions of profiling gang members. Even if you were not a gang member you could be affected by a cop who is having a bad day ordering you to disperse. "Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice Breyer, concluded that, as construed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Chicago ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks sufficient minimal standards to guide law enforcement officers; in particular, it fails to provide any standard by which police can judge whether an individual has an “apparent purpose.”(Chicago v. Morales, 1999) They want a person to show apparent purpose, my question is what if me going to the park to relax is my purpose what then? As a tax payer I or anyone else for that matter has the right to enjoy a public place hence the word public. If I a student can clearly see the injustice in Chicago’s tactics then so can anyone else, and the Supreme Court to me shouldn’t have to tell Police Officers that it is unconstitutional and wrong as a whole. I’ve attempted to keep my personal views out of this and state just the facts, but the fact is that a Chicago is known for its ramped gang problem as well as a series of events that has risen to the top and is overflowing into the streets. For a long time Chicago has been the hub for criminal activity in the Midwest and Police stand on equal footing as gang members in their participation. To me it’s a case of we can’t sweep this under the rug anymore and no longer hold the leash on a problem Chicago created.

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)

The Reasoning of the Court

The reasoning for the court’s decision was based on precedence cases, such as Kolender v. Lawson, Smiley v. Kansas, and Smith v. Goguen. Three different views on the meaning and understanding of the statute, Kolender v. Lawson is a reference to California’s meaning of loitering, while Smiley v. Kansas deals with meaning of the statute, saying that it is up to the court to determine the meaning of the statute, giving room to misuse of the statute. Smith v. Goguen shows another example of the statute being vague and unconstitutional. In Kolender v. Lawson the focus seems to be on the ability to prove credible and reliable identification when requested by an officer “Carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." (Kolender v. Lawson, 1983) This may give example to the approach California has adopted to deal with loitering and is acceptable by the Supreme Court. Smiley v. Kansas focuses on the involvement of higher courts in a states definition of the law. “The power in the state court to determine the meaning of a state statute carries with it the power to prescribe its extent and limitations, as well as the method by which they shall be determined.” (Smiley v. Kansas, 1905) The state felt it understanding and method of dealing with violators was valid and shouldn’t be challenge by a higher court, meaning the Supreme Court. Smith v. Goguen shows how misuse of a statute and how vagueness violates amendment 14, due process “The challenged statutory language, which had received no narrowing state court interpretation, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” ( Smith v. Goguen, 1974) General order 92-4 made by Chicago was wrong and enforceable in the Supreme Court’s opinion and honored The State Supreme Court, appealing latter cases.

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.

EOC WEEK 9

The illicit trade as a whole appears on the surface to be a harmless trade that offers consumers a chance to experience or own high end products for a fraction of the price. No harm no foul right? Have you ever thought beyond the end user? Who are the people who benefit from this harmless trade? A better question is who is affected by that new “Gucci” bag you purchased. Do you envision the sweet women in the sweat shop who is required to work in meager conditions, long hours and close to nothing in the means of pay. When

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.