Anti-Gang Ordinances After City of Chicago v. Morales: The Intersection of Race, Vagueness Doctrine, and Equal Protection in the Criminal Law

• NCJ Number: 195361
• Journal: American Criminal Law Review Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Dated: Winter 2002 Pages: 101-146
• Author(s): Kim Strosnider
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 46 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article examines the influence of the City of Chicago v. Morales United States Supreme Court case on anti-gang ordinances and contextualizes the case through a survey on anti-gang efforts across the United States.

Abstract

States and cities across the United States have been exploring new ways to curtail gang crime. A vast array of approaches have been developed using both criminal laws and civil injunctions, as well as enacting an assortment of targeted or zoned loitering ordinances. Chicago’s response to gang violence focused on the anti-gang loitering ordinance. This ordinance allows police to arrest any group of two or more people who remain in a public place “with no apparent purpose” if the police reasonably believe the group includes a gang member. This ordinance allows for great police discretion. In 1999, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Chicago anti-gang loitering ordinance in the City of Chicago v. Morales case. This was the Court’s first word on anti-gang legislation. The ordinance was seen as void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and subsequently rewritten. However, it then became entangled in both due process and equal protection guarantees. This article examines how the Morales case shaped vagueness doctrine and influenced community efforts to control gangs and shape public order. The article explores the response of legislatures and courts to gangs in the era leading up to and following Morales. The study is divided into three sections. Section I surveyed State anti-gang ordinances nationwide and compared and contrasted the legal responses by Los Angeles and Chicago. Section II analyzed Morales and discussed its relevance to the existing jurisprudence of vagueness doctrine. Finally, section III discussed the impact of Morales on anti-gang and public order laws. The article concludes that Chicago’s current approach intensifies the problems that the Court found with its first anti-gang law instead of resolving them. Appendices