Pubdate: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2000 The New York Times Company
Contact:  229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Fax: (212) 556-3622
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Pam Belluck

CHICAGO ANTI-LOITERING LAW AIMS TO DISRUPT GANGS

CHICAGO -- The corner of 18th and Throop Streets is the heart of Chicago 
gang territory. At least three gangs battle over turf in this Southwest 
Side neighborhood, and gunfire erupts at all hours. Children walking to 
Manuel Perez Jr. Elementary School have been pelted with bottles or assaulted.

"For many of our kids, simply getting to school can be a matter of life and 
death," Sylvia Stamatoglou, principal of the Perez school, said.

So few would argue that the corner was a poor choice for the first arrests 
issued under a new Chicago anti-gang ordinance this month. The ordinance 
lets police officers arrest suspected gang members or drug dealers if they 
disregard an order to leave a corner or block that the police have 
identified as a gang "hot spot." On Aug. 18, the police say, three men who 
had been flashing gang signs disobeyed an order to stay away from 18th and 
Throop for at least three hours.

While the city's new ordinance -- written after the Supreme Court struck 
down a highly publicized anti-loitering ordinance that had been a model for 
other cities -- has attracted early praise, it has also drawn criticism.

It is less broad than the old one, but civil rights advocates still 
question whether innocent people will get swept off the streets. Some 
aldermen are irked that the city has not told them where the "hot spots" in 
their wards are. Some people question whether the measure will make a real 
difference.

"It's a good thing, but at the same time it doesn't solve the root of the 
problem," said Sister Rayo Cuaya-Castillo of Holy Trinity Croatian Church, 
a half-block from 18th and Throop. Cuaya-Castillo said that after the 
arrests, gang members returned to the corner, and there was shooting that 
night and the next. Ultimately, she said, gangs might "move to another 
neighborhood," but "they will continue to do the same thing."

Under the old anti-loitering ordinance, ruled unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court last year, the police arrested more than 42,000 people. That 
measure made it a crime for anyone standing with a suspected gang member to 
"remain in any one place with no apparent purpose" after a police order to 
disperse.

"It matters not," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the 6-3 opinion that 
struck down the ordinance, "whether the reason that a gang member and his 
father, for example, might loiter near Wrigley Field is to rob an 
unsuspecting fan or just to get a glimpse of Sammy Sosa leaving the ballpark."

Lawrence Rosenthal, the city's deputy corporation counsel, said that the 
new ordinance -- besides requiring arrests in designated "hot spots" -- 
requires a police officer to have "a reasonable belief that gang or drug 
activity is taking place." It also requires "more extensive documentation," 
he said, on arrests and dispersal orders that do not lead to arrests.

Rosenthal said the city knew that the ordinance would not instantly solve 
the gang problem. Those arrested can be jailed only until their 
fingerprints are processed, usually a day, unless they are found with drugs 
or guns. While the locations of "hot spots" -- there are currently 86 -- 
are not being disclosed, as arrests are made, gang members figure them out.

"But the gangs have a limited ability to adapt to this," Rosenthal said. 
"Their own gang boundaries are limited because they can't go on rival gang 
turf. And they have to be where their buyers expect them to be. You're 
disrupting the drug markets, making it harder for people to find their 
accustomed source of drugs, making the gangs less profitable. And if they 
keep going out there, they're going to wind up doing life in prison one day 
at a time."

Pat Camden, a police department spokesman, said that so far officers had 
issued 39 dispersal orders involving 174 people, and that 12 people had 
been arrested in four incidents. The list of hot spots is to change every 
three months. The hope, Camden and Rosenthal said, is that once people see 
police taking action, they will be more comfortable helping the police.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit against the 
first ordinance, said it opposed the new one and would monitor its use.

"The ordinance leaves itself far too open for wrongful enforcement," said 
Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the ACLU. "If young men are made to feel suspect 
when they're doing nothing wrong, then ultimately it's going to be hard to 
bring those people into a real meaningful program of community policing."

Still, people like Stamataglou, the principal, welcomed the new efforts. 
After all, she said, hers was a neighborhood where people were too afraid 
to form parent patrols to escort children to school. At least the new 
ordinance would make the police more visible.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens