Broken Window Theory Behind Chicago's Gang Loitering Ordinance (Now Shattered Glass)

Editor's Note: Chicago, long known for its stockyards, the Haymarket Square Riot, political graft and corruption, and the police brutality at the 1969 Democratic National Convention, decided at the dawn of the new millennium, that it had had enough of its gangs. These anti-social groups were seen as the equivalent of walking dynamite wherever they chose to occupy themselves, as squatters, strollers, or loiters, throughout the Windy City. Operating on the "broken window" theory (broken windows, if not repaired, spawn a copy-cat contagion of more broken windows), Chicago enacted an ordinance prohibiting known gang members from loitering in public places. The following is an abstract published in "Oyez Project: Chicago v. Morales." It is noteworthy for the Kryptonite effect legal challenges had upon the ordinance. A barrage of arguments eventually torpedoed the onerous ordinance at the Supreme Court level. We, in the Defense Bar, need to periodically refresh our memories about these kinds of challenges to Constitutionally-defective laws and their eventual result.
# # #

Facts of the Case
Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibits "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places. 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. A violation of the ordinance arises when anyone does not promptly obey a dispersal order. An officer's discretion was purportedly limited by confining arrest authority to designated officers, establishing detailed criteria for defining street gangs and membership therein, and providing for designated, but publicly undisclosed, enforcement areas. In 1993, Jesus Morales was arrested and found guilty under the ordinance for loitering in a Chicago neighborhood after he ignored police orders to disperse. Ultimately, after Morales challenged his arrest, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the ordinance violated due process of law in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.

Question
Does Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance, which prohibits "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Conclusion
Yes. In a plurality ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens delivered an opinion for a marjority on several key points. The Court held that Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and provided law enforcement officials too much discretion to decide what activities constitute loitering. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority that the ordinance's definition of loitering as "to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose" does not give people adequate notice of what is prohibited and what is permitted, even if a person does not violate the law until he refuses to disperse. "'[A] law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits,'" noted Justice Stevens, "[i]f the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)
Decision: 6 votes for Morales, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

The Oyez Project, Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999),
available at:

When Corrupt Cops and Gangbangers Get in Bed Together

Editor's Note: Jim Kouri, president of the International Association of Police Chiefs, penned the following article. For those of us who work in the Defense Bar, the article presents information that is current and useful. As we strive and endeavor to ensure the best defense possible for our clients, we might read carefully the information that is presented for points that might prove fruitful in their use.

A federal grand jury in Los Angeles indicted six gang members -- including three law enforcement officers -- on civil rights, narcotics and weapons charges for allegedly participating in an organized enterprise consisting of law enforcement officers and civilians who "invaded" private homes as though they were conducting legitimate law enforcement operations, but in reality were staging home-invasion robberies to steal drugs, money and weapons.

The case developed after feds arrested a suspended corrections officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Federal and local investigators discovered that the leader of the crime gang was actually a Los Angeles police officer named Ruben Palomares.

The more than 50 charges filed accuse the defendants of committing more than 20 robberies and burglaries from 1999 through 2001. The investigation into the gang began when Palomares and another member of his gang were arrested in San Diego on cocaine trafficking charges in June 2001.

The investigation, involving agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as officers with the Los Angeles Police Department and the Long Beach Police Department, found that the robberies were generally committed after Palomares received information that a particular location was involved in the narcotics trade.

After planning the operation and conducting surveillance, the robbery team -- which usually consisted of multiple sworn police officers in uniform or displaying a badge -- gained access to the residence by falsely telling any residents that they were conducting a legitimate search for drugs or drug dealers. Victims were often restrained, handcuffed, threatened or assaulted during the search, and on one occasion a man was hit with a stun gun.

Although many of the raids did not yield the anticipated narcotics, the crew allegedly stole any items of value found inside the residences. When the group did steal items, they divided profits from the sale of the stolen goods among themselves.

During the course of the conspiracy, Palomares provided associates with official LAPD badges, uniforms, radios, firearms and other equipment. Some of the robberies were committed after the thieves drove to the location in official LAPD vehicles. The robbers used the LAPD equipment to make victims believe they were the subject of legitimate law enforcement operations and to minimize the defendants' risk of being questioned if confronted by law enforcement officers.

"The depth of corruption and audacity among these law enforcement officers is nothing less than stunning," said United States Attorney Debra Wong Yang. "While having a badge imparts some degree of power to an officer of the law, it also imparts a great deal of responsibility. In addition to rejecting their responsibilities to the law, these officers rejected their sacred responsibilities to their communities and their departments."

Six defendants are named in a 54-count indictment returned by the grand jury. The three law enforcement defendants are:

- Rodrigo Duran, 35, of Tehachapi, a former deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who has been employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation since 1996 (he is currently on administrative leave;)

- William Ferguson, 33, of Huntington Beach, a former Los Angeles Police Officer who was terminated by the Department in 2003; and

- Joseph Ferguson, 31, of Garden Grove, who is William Ferguson's brother and a former officer with the Long Beach Police Department.

"The reality is, no police department is immune from bad cops," stated Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton. "I have no tolerance for intentional misconduct and will deal with it forcefully and aggressively. Supervision, safeguards and civilian oversight are used to monitor employees and ensure quality police service. No good cop wants to work with a bad cop. No good cop wants a bad cop in their Department. Today's announcement proves we are committed to getting rid of those who would tarnish the LAPD badge."

Long Beach Police Chief Anthony Batts stated: "When a police officer violates the laws that he has sworn to uphold, it erodes the public trust that we in law enforcement work so hard to build. The men and women of the Long Beach Police Department take great pride in their work and are fully committed to the safety of our community. Reckless actions by individuals that undermine the integrity of this department and damage the public trust will not be tolerated."

In one burglary, members of the gang allegedly stole 600 pounds of marijuana. In another incident, several co-conspirators allegedly stole television sets from an 18-wheel truck in Montebello.

And, in another robbery outside a Fontana market, Palomares and another man dressed as a police officer robbed a man of $45,000 worth of pseudoephedrine pills, which are a key precursor chemical in the manufacture of methamphetamine.