Under the city's tough anti-gang law, officers could break up
groups of people hanging out in public "with no apparent
purpose.'' But not any more. The Supreme Court struck down the law
Thursday, calling it unconstitutionally vague.
"The constitution is supposed to protect my rights too,'' said
Moore, 74. "What's a more basic right than feeling safe on my
property or being able to walk on my street?''
Moore and other supporters of the ordinance said the Supreme
Court arrogantly elevated abstract ideals of civil liberty over the
practical problems of gang violence in a decision that patronizes
those simply looking for safer streets.
"I'll be doggone if the Supreme Court can tell me what's best
for my neighborhood,'' Alderman Ed Smith said. "I can guarantee
that each one of the justices lives in ostentatiousness. They have
no idea what we live like.''
Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, echoed
Smith's sentiments in a furious dissent to the 6-3 ruling. He said
the court had "unnecessarily sentenced law-abiding citizens to
lives of terror and misery.''
"The people who suffer from our lofty pronouncements are people
... who have seen their neighborhoods literally destroyed by gangs
and violence and drugs,'' he said.
The 1992 ordinance required police to order any group of people
standing around to move along if an officer believed at least one
of them belonged to a street gang. It led to 45,000 arrests in the
three years it was enforced.
Solden Collins, 65, has lived in the impoverished Austin
community on Chicago's West Side for more than 30 years. For most
of this year, drug dealers have used the vacant lot across the
street from his home as their base of operations.
"I'd look out the window and there they were, just hanging out,
causing trouble,'' he said, adding the impact was immense: The
streets became desolate as people feared going outside and some
neighbors decided to move.
There is disagreement over how many street gang members reside
in Chicago. City police estimated gang membership might total
10,000, but the court was told federal prosecutors believe the
total might be closer to 100,000.
Some Austin residents say there is barely a corner or alley in
the neighborhood that is not manned by an intimidating group. Most
don't understand the logic of the Supreme Court's decision.
Smith, who has been Austin's representative for 16 years, said
he witnessed police officers disperse and arrest gang members under
the law, and he never saw them abuse their power. "It never
happened,'' he said.
By invalidating the law, Smith said, the Supreme Court took away
a valuable tool to battle the area's pervasive problems.
But the high court said the law simply gave officers too much
discretion to arrest people who never had adequate warning of what
conduct was forbidden.
"If the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the
dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty,''
even if it did reduce crime, Justice John Paul Stevens, a Chicago
native, said in the court's main opinion.
Harvey Grossman, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who
successfully challenged the ordinance, said the court correctly
understood that anti-loitering laws are vulnerable to abuse and can
lead to discrimination against minorities.
"We are grateful ... that it is not a criminal activity simply
to be a young man of color gathered with friends on the streets of
Chicago,'' said Grossman. "Such laws are likely to be enforced in
a discriminatory manner.''
Mayor Richard Daley said the city will try to draft a new
ordinance that will withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"We will go back and correct it and then move forward,'' he
said. "These are known gangbangers and dope dealers. What do I do,
throw a picnic for them?''
Until the law is revamped, people like Moore say, gang members
will only be emboldened by the court's ruling.
"The Supreme Court is on their side,'' he said.
By Evelyne Girardet, Associated Press
