Pubdate: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact:  435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611-4066
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Author: Phil Borchmann

DRUGS, PROSTITUTION TARGETS OF KANE'S NEW LOITERING LAW

Kane County sheriff's police have a new weapon to thwart drug dealing
and prostitution--a loitering citation.

County Board members this week voted 21-3 to adopt an ordinance that
allows officers to approach loiterers if they exhibit certain
behavior, such as acting as a lookout, handing small packages to
another person "in a furtive fashion" in exchange for money, or
repeatedly stopping individuals or vehicles and engaging them in
conversations "indicative of drug dealing . . . or
prostitution."

Violators can be fined up to $500, but law enforcement officials
believe the strength of the ordinance lies in the ability to break up
potentially illegal activity.

The law was crafted largely in response to prostitution and drug
dealing in a far southeast portion of Aurora, where several blocks
under county control are almost enveloped by the city.

The city of Aurora has a similar law on its books, officials
said.

"The city's ordinances don't affect that (unincorporated) area and the
criminals know this, so they walk to the other side of the street,"
said County Board member Dorothy Sanchez (D-Aurora). "We've got the
citizen and business owners screaming to get something done, but our
county officers' hands have been tied."

Aurora Democrat Gerald Jones initially opposed the proposed
anti-loitering law, he said because he believed there was potential
for discrimination against minorities. But as long as sheriff's police
received the proper training, the likelihood of abuse of power will be
limited, he said.

"It gives the Sheriff's Department another opportunity to intervene,"
said Jones, who is the only African-American on the 26-member County
Board.

But another Aurora Democrat, Paul Greviskes, voted against the
measure, saying the ordinance threatens to intrude upon personal freedom.

"It comes so very close to infringing on what could be lawful
activity," said Greviskes, who is an attorney. "It's a vague statute
that definitely skirts the line."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek Rea