{"id":662,"date":"2012-04-17T16:03:22","date_gmt":"2012-04-17T20:03:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=662"},"modified":"2012-04-17T16:03:22","modified_gmt":"2012-04-17T20:03:22","slug":"city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999\/","title":{"rendered":"City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case Name: <\/strong>City of Chicago v. Morales
\nCitation: <\/strong>527 U.S. 41 (1999)<\/p>\n

Facts: <\/strong>Chicago enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibiting \u201ccriminal street gang members\u201d from \u201cloitering\u201d with one another in any public case.<\/p>\n

The offense required four predicates:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Police officer must reasonably believe that at least one of the people is a criminal street gang member<\/li>\n
  2. The people must be \u201cloitering\u201d \u2013 defined as \u2013 \u201cremaining in any\u00a0 one place with no apparent purpose<\/strong>\u201d<\/li>\n
  3. The officer must order all of the people to disperse and remove themselves from the area<\/li>\n
  4. A person must disobey the officer\u2019s order<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Issue: <\/strong>Whether the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th<\/sup> Amendment<\/p>\n

    City\u2019s argument: <\/strong>The person receives adequate notice once the officer tells him to disperse. Also, crime went down when the ordinance was enacted (footnote). Police officers need discretion.<\/p>\n

    Defendant\u2019s argument: <\/strong>The ordinance is so vague and it leaves the \u201cpublic uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits.\u201d (See example of drug dealing basketball players in footnote). An officer\u2019s order cannot retroactively give adequate warning of the boundary between the permissible and the impermissible applications of the law. The ordinance has an overall lack of clarity and there are no guidelines for law enforcement as the ordinance gives them absolute discretion.<\/p>\n

    Holding: <\/strong>The city\u2019s ordinance affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens.<\/p>\n

    Concurrence: <\/strong>Apparent purpose \u2013 needs a standard to go along with it<\/p>\n

    Dissent: <\/strong>Police\/peace officers have always had discretion and have always performed the duty of preventing loitering (\u201cmove along\u201d he calls it). Also, the majority underestimates the intelligence of the people of Chicago and whether or not they will know if the public perceives them as having no apparent purpose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Case Name: City of Chicago v. Morales Citation: 527 U.S. 41 (1999) Facts: Chicago enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibiting \u201ccriminal street gang members\u201d from \u201cloitering\u201d with one another in any public case. The offense required four predicates: Police officer must reasonably believe that at least one of the people is a criminal street gang … <\/p>\n

    Continue reading “City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[146,145],"tags":[126,156],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nCity of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Chicago enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibiting \u201ccriminal street gang members\u201d from \u201cloitering\u201d with one another in any public case.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Chicago enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibiting \u201ccriminal street gang members\u201d from \u201cloitering\u201d with one another in any public case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-04-17T20:03:22+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999\/\",\"name\":\"City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-04-17T20:03:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-04-17T20:03:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Chicago enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibiting \\u201ccriminal street gang members\\u201d from \\u201cloitering\\u201d with one another in any public case.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/city-of-chicago-v-morales-527-u-s-41-1999\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=662"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":663,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662\/revisions\/663"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}