NCJ Number
173002
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 67 Issue: 2 Dated: February 1998 Pages: 25-32
Date Published
1998
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article examines recent decisions by the Illinois Supreme Court that found a gang-loitering ordinance unconstitutional, as well as a decision by the California Supreme Court that upheld the use of an injunction to target gang conduct that creates a "public nuisance."
Abstract
In 1992 the Chicago City Council enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance, which provided that whenever a police officer observes a person whom he/she reasonably believes to be a criminal street gang member loitering in any public place with one or more other persons, he/she shall order all such persons to disperse and remove themselves from the area. Any person who did not promptly obey such an order was in violation of the ordinance. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the ordinance violated due process of law because it was unconstitutionally vague and lent itself to arbitrary enforcement. In California, several municipalities have used civil injunctions to abate gang activity under the theory that ongoing gang activity is a public nuisance. The term "nuisance" is generally regarded as interference with the use and enjoyment of property, as well as interference with personal interests, such as being subjected to a pattern of acts that are offensive or harmful. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood as a whole. In 1997 the California Supreme Court held, in Gallo v. Acuna, that the conduct of the gang members as described by law enforcement and community residents met the definition of a public nuisance. Injunctions that target specific gang-member behaviors that are deemed to be a public nuisance can be framed so they do not violate constitutional protections for the right of association, free speech, and due process. 45 notes