City of Chicago v. Morales

Facts

In 1992, the Chicago City Council enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance. A council committee had held hearings, and the council found that gang members who loitered in public places intimidated many law-abiding citizens, claimed control over areas, and avoided arrest by breaking no law while police were nearby. Under the ordinance, if a police officer reasonably believed that one of two or more people in a public place was a criminal street gang member, and they were loitering, the officer had to order all of them to disperse. The ordinance defined to loiter as to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose. Anyone who did not promptly obey the order, gang member or not, broke the law. The penalty was a fine of up to $500, up to six months in jail, and up to 120 hours of community service. Two months later, the police department issued General Order 92–4. It limited which officers could make arrests and said the ordinance would be enforced only in areas that district commanders designated. The city did not release those locations to the public. During three years of enforcement, police issued over 89,000 dispersal orders and arrested over 42,000 people. Not all of the respondents were gang members. The city admitted it could not prove that Morales was one.

Issues

1. Does the Gang Congregation Ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague?
2. Do the ordinance's limits, such as the officer's reasonable belief that a gang member is present and the rule that no arrest comes before a dispersal order is disobeyed, supply the minimal guidelines a legislature must establish to govern law enforcement?

Holding

The ordinance directs an officer to order anyone who remains in one place with a suspected gang member to disperse unless their purpose is apparent to the officer, and each of the three limits the city claimed on the officer's discretion is insufficient. It fails the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement, so it is unconstitutionally vague, and the Illinois Supreme Court's judgment is affirmed.