City of Chicago Can Brief- Criminal Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief based on "Criminal Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials" by Kadish...

Description

City of Chicago v. Morales Supreme Court of the United States PROCEDURAL HISTORY:  

Trial court dismissed many charges IL Supreme court found for the defendant as well bc no specifics limits on the discretion of police officers to determine what conduct constituted loitering

FACTS:    



1992 Chicago City Council enacted Gang Congregation Ordinance which prohibits criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or with other persons in any public place City found that gang members were loitering and in an effort to control gang activity they passed the ordinance There was an increase in violent and drug related crimes, it intimidated citizens and limited access to certain areas The elements of the crime: o Police officer must reasonably believe that at least one of the two or more persons present in a “public place “is a criminal street gang member o The persons must be “loitering” which the ordinance defines as remaining in one place with no apparent purpose o The officer must order these persons to disperse o The order must be disobeyed Defendants challenged the ordinance by stating it broadly covered a significant amt. of additional activity beyond that should be interpreted as loitering and was, unconstitutionally vague

ISSUE: Whether the supreme court of IL correctly held that the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment? HOLDING: 

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ill. Is affirmed.

DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:   

The enacted ordinance that affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens who wish to use the public streets The Constitution does not permit a legislature to “set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and who should be set at large” Fails to provide police with any standard by which they can judge whether an individual has an “apparent purpose”

DISSENT:    

Justice Thomas They must offer discretionand the law cannot restrain their every action Must rely on the officers experience and expertise in order to make spur-of-the-moment decisions about “probably cause” and “reasonable suspicion”  must trust them Anyone with common sense would know what loitering and what is under the statute...