Individual Autonomy Versus Community: Is it All or Nothing? An analysis of City of Chicago v. Morales

Abstract

Five year old Jose Patino was riding his bicycle when he was caught in gang crossfire; a bullet pierced through his back, grazed his bladder, and came out his stomach before his father could pull him from the streets.

The City of Chicago ("Chicago") is a metropolis plagued by the high murder rates, drive-by shootings, drug dealings, and vandalism of criminal street gangs. Neighborhoods are battle zones, where people are afraid to step outside their homes onto streets that were once safe to stroll down at any time of day. Each year serious crimes attributable to criminal street gangs have incessantly increased in number. In 1998, the Department of Justice estimated the existence of 23,000 gangs having 650,000 members, 100,000 or more of which exist in Chicago.

In an attempt to explore criminal street gang activity, mainly that of loitering in public and the problems it creates, Chicago's city council conducted several hearings in 1992. During those hearings, people from the neighborhoods most effected by criminal street gangs testified, expressing their fear and frustration. Chicago's city council made a series of findings at the hearings and based on those findings, the City of Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance was enacted.

After the enactment of Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance, Chicago police made thousands of arrests and gang activity seemed to be decreasing; the people were hopeful. However, several arrestees, including Jesus Morales, challenged the constitutionality of the Ordinance, claiming that the Ordinance is a restraint on personal liberty. Even though Morales claims the Ordinance is unconstitutional because it restrains his personal liberty, an important question still remains; is it okay to do so to protect the greater community?

The historical background of this issue is discussed in part II. Part III of this note outlines the facts of City of Chicago v. Morales and its procedural background. Part IV analyzes the Supreme Court's decision, as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions, and the reasoning behind those decisions. Part V discusses the impact of the Court's decision and finally, part VI draws some brief conclusions.