The ISBA reports today that a recent Seventh Circuit Decision in Bell v. Chicago Police Chief Keating, No. 11-2408 (September 10, 2012) has threatened a Chicago Municipal Code Ordinance, Section 8-4-010(d), which prohibits acts of disorderly conduct when individual knowingly fails to obey lawful police order under circumstances where three or more other persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct in immediate vicinity, and where said acts are likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. The plaintiffs alleged that the Ordinance violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court ruled that the plaintiff's lacked standing to bring a facial Constitutional challenge to the ordinance. The Seventh Circuit reversed the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and concluded that there was standing.
Standing for the plaintiff was established where he had previously been arrested under said ordinance, and where he alleged that potential for future enforcement of ordinance had chilling effect on his willingness to participate in lawful protests and assemblies. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit found that ordinance was overbroad and void for vagueness with respect to giving police authority to disburse individuals on basis of "serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm," since ordinance: (1) substantially encumbered political expression vis-a vis ordinance's legitimate scope; and (2) failed to identify what types of conduct would trigger lawful dispersal order and allowed for arbitrary enforcement.
All in all, the City of Chicago will likely be drafting a new ordinance that is less vague, broad, and Constitutionally defective.
If you feel that your Constitutional rights have been violated, you should reach out to an attorney who will fight for your rights. Not all laws can be successfully challenged and this case reminds us all that not all plaintiffs have standing to challenge these laws, but this case also stands for the fact that Constitutional lawsuits are always a fight to the end, even when standing is at issue.
All in all, the City of Chicago will likely be drafting a new ordinance that is less vague, broad, and Constitutionally defective.
If you feel that your Constitutional rights have been violated, you should reach out to an attorney who will fight for your rights. Not all laws can be successfully challenged and this case reminds us all that not all plaintiffs have standing to challenge these laws, but this case also stands for the fact that Constitutional lawsuits are always a fight to the end, even when standing is at issue.
RSS Feed