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:

Putting in Work: A Gang Obsession That Includes Hate Crimes

Editor's Note: The gang obsessive-compulsion passion of "putting in work" is not restricted to crimes against persons who were either: (a) "slipping", that is, high, drunk, or otherwise vulnerable; (b) weak and easy prey; (c) rival gangsters; or (d) wrongdoers who had to be "DP'D" or "dee-peed"--disciplined. Putting in work is a non-negotiable requirement to commit criminal acts to maintain gang membership and strength, as well as maintain and increase respect, fear, prestige, and reputation. "Big Homies" who run gangs are rigidly conservative in their orientation toward life and generally untrusting in their suspicion-driven world view. They are "equal opportunity employers" who require all their underlings to put in work daily. They judge the quality and character of their "soldiers" (big homies favor military-type terms) by whether and how they put in work.

Putting in work includes the hate crime of assaulting, attacking, harassing or shooting somebody based on their race and ethnicity. Thus, the People's gang enhancement allegations might well be reinforced and argued in a clear and convincing manner if there is a hate crime component to the gangbanger's actions. Many gangbangers are totally unaware of the implications of gang activities, in general, and those gang acts fueled and driven by racial hatred. Big Homie simply does not take time to educate his underlings about how state prison sentencing is factored when one of his "little homies" is being tried in court on gang enhancement AND hate crime charges.

The barbaric and primal assaulting of persons who are of the same race and ethnicity as their attackers, is so customary among gangs as to be virtually a crime-cliche to the public at large. Whenever there were gang-against-gang conflicts, one could very nearly always presume the combatants to have been of the same race. That is why law enforcement and districts attorney are taking a hard look at gang assaults on persons whose race and ethnicity are markedly different than their attackers. Latino gang assaults on blacks figure prominently, in terms of frequency. Black gang assaults on latinos, although they do occur, do not happen with the same frequency.

A presiding question that may come to your mind is, since Big Homie is not tutoring his slave-flock of young gangbangers about the punitive and sentencing phases of court trials and the power of juries, who in the community is alerting these adolescents-wanting-to-be-men to the bigger-than-life danger of having their manhood aborted and abruptly curtailed by torturous terms spent in youth probation camps, state youth prison, and adult state prison (commonly called the "big house")? Who is really telling them what gang acts really mean, from a prosecutor's point of view? Who is telling them the truth about how the prosecutor, in the name of "The People," can argue convincingly and persuasively that a young defendant on trial is so hard-core that every act he does is in the name of the trinity known as My Gang, My Big Homie, My Hood. Once that argument is made, delivered, and buttressed with sundry pieces of evidence, a hate crime, in addition to being exploited and magnified by the prosecutor, for the jury, becomes the high-octane fuel that ignites, inflames, and confirms the gang-enhancement charge: acts done at the direction of, or for the benefit of, the gang, to enhance its reputation, inspire fear, and exercise control.

The defense never rests. And despite gangbangers' virtual nonstop activity, they deserve to have their right to a fair trial preserved, protected and honored by those of us who aid and abet said defense in a court of law.


The County Human Relations Commission reports a 28% increase last year, with assaults and vandalism the leading categories.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

12:32 PM PDT, July 24, 2008

Hate crimes in Los Angeles rose to their highest level in five years last year, led by attacks between Latinos and blacks, county officials reported today. The annual report by the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission showed hate crimes rose by 28% overall for a total of 763, with assault and vandalism leading the way.

The largest number involved Latino suspects against black victims; the second largest involved black suspects against Latino victims.

Despite the intense national debate over illegal immigration, hate crimes against immigrants decreased slightly. Incidents against Muslims, which increased after the 2001 terrorist attacks, also decreased slightly. The largest number of religion-based hate crimes were directed against Jews.

The rise in hate crimes contrasted with the decline in the general crime rate in Los Angeles.

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com