When the Chicago City Council passed its highly publicized anti-gang loitering ordinance in 1992, the measure was hailed as one of the most effective weapons yet against street gangs and their often intimidating presence on the city’s street corners.
More Top Picks Ravpower Ace 6700 Rp Pb125
And when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the ordinance was unconstitutional, some of its defenders, including Mayor Richard M. Daley, vowed to come up with a new ordinance as soon as possible to replace that major weapon.
But the ordinance banning the congregating of known gang members in public hasn’t been part of the Chicago police anti-crime arsenal for four years, even though more than 41,000 people were arrested under it in its first three years on the books.
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the ordinance will have little practical effect on efforts to fight gangs. That is because Chicago police already have adjusted their tactics since the law was first declared unconstitutional in state court more than three years ago.
Although most police said the ordinance allowed them to sweep quickly and effectively suspected gang members from street corners, they acknowledged that in most cases they can accomplish the same by arresting gang members on disorderly conduct, obstructing traffic and other misdemeanor charges or by staking out street corners and using other strategies.
“We still have a lot of tools in the toolbox,” Chicago Police Sgt. Joe Porebski said in a recent interview. “It takes us a little longer. But we accomplish the same things, and we haven’t violated anyone’s civil rights.”
The high court’s ruling also is expected to have little impact in the suburbs, where many communities held off passing similar laws because their officials believed that Chicago’s ordinance eventually would be ruled unconstitutional.
“Most of the guys I know didn’t feel it would pass the court test,” said Harvey Police Chief Phillip Hardiman.
Chicago Heights is one of the few communities that passed an anti-gang loitering ordinance modeled after Chicago’s. But its police chief, Gerry Billups, said the city stopped enforcing it several years ago after a state court ruled Chicago’s ordinance unconstitutional.
“It’s been very difficult,” said Billups. “Basically, (police) just try to get (suspected gang members) to move from the areas. The officer gets out of the car and asks them why they are standing on the corners. If it’s done enough times, usually when the squad pulls up they start ambling off.”
Chicago police records show that 41,741 people were arrested under the Gang Congregation Ordinance between 1992, when the City Council approved it, and 1995, when an Illinois Appellate Court ruled the ordinance unconstitutional and the city stopped enforcing it.
The law, which became a key component of the city’s community policing program, targeted gang members gathering on street corners and in parks.
It allowed police to arrest a group of loiterers if one is a known gang member and the group ignores an order to disperse. Once in custody, police could search them for contraband–which led in some cases to more serious charges.
“It was an effective tool for law enforcement that was initiated at the request of the communities involved,” said Chicago police spokesman Pat Camden.
The ordinance had widespread support in many city communities plagued by gang violence. The city collected 22,000 signatures in support of the ordinance and, last December, dozens of Chicago community and city leaders held a rally in support of it outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building.
But some community activists and residents said the law gave the police broad powers that allowed them to arrest individuals who were not committing any crime, other than standing on the street.
“I’m sorry to see the ordinance go, but it was a tool too easily abused,” said Fredricka Lightfoot, an Englewood resident and community activist. “Unfortunately, this ordinance was the easy way out.”
At a beat meeting this spring in Mt. Olive Church in the Austin neighborhood, Rev. Lewis Flowers said that the streets in his West Side neighborhood were safer when Chicago police were enforcing the ordinance.
Flowers said police were able to sweep gang members hanging out along Division Street, Chicago Avenue and other major thoroughfares, allowing children and senior citizens to walk “without fear.”
“It was fantastic,” said Flowers of the ordinance. “When we had it here in the 15th (Austin Police District), the streets were clean.”
But Sgt. Porebski, a beat team leader and a supporter of the ordinance, said that the ordinance’s effectiveness was limited because individuals were often released within hours of being arrested–something that he said undermined the police’s authority.
“We had a lot of frustration,” he said.
Since 1995, when the ordinance was first struck down, Porebski and other uniformed officers said they’ve adopted a more deliberate strategy, gangs, often questioning groups of suspected gang members hanging out on street corners.
If their suspicions are aroused, officers can search the suspects for weapons and check for outstanding warrants. If the suspects cooperate and police find nothing, Porebski said, officers can retreat to their squad cars and “watch them.”
More Top Picks Best Coffee Drip Tray Mats
In some cases, he said, the suspected gang members will disperse.
“Maybe they’ll leave because the police are there,” Porebski said.
Without the ordinance, police say that they often have to rely more on the assistance of citizens to help them arrest suspected gang members breaking the law.
If suspected gang members are blocking a sidewalk or doorway, intimidating a store owner, accosting business patrons or doing anything else to disturb the peace, they can be arrested if someone signs a complaint, police say. Police also can arrest suspected gang members if they are seen flashing gang signs.
“Police can cite someone for disorderly conduct, but they have to be disorderly,” said Wood District Tactical Sgt. John Enault. “If they’re just standing on the corner and not violating the law, we can’t do anything.”