Disorderly Conduct Revisited
The mayor and city council are attempting to revamp a law that has been distorted and struck down so many times, that no one know if it would actually be applicable:
- Chicago aldermen on Thursday advanced a plan to change the city’s disorderly conduct ordinance in a way they argued could help police disperse crowds at gang funerals as part of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s get-tough stance on the gatherings.
The new provision would allow “public safety officials to address a situation that threatens the public health, safety or welfare,” and Ald. Ameya Pawar, 47th, asked city attorneys how that squares with Emanuel’s pledge to treat gang funerals like “a gang event.”
“Under the right circumstances, I think it could apply,” replied Jeff Levine of the city's Law Department during a City Council Public Safety Committee hearing on the disorderly conduct statute.
Great. A "lawyer" from the "Law Department" thinks it "could apply."
Well, gee whiz, that's a fucking relief. Especially seeing as how the lawyers and aldercreatures aren't the ones whose homes and livelihoods are on the line enforcing an ordinance a "trained lawyer" won't even say is ironclad when it appears in Federal Court.
And not to put too fine a point on it, the city's "Law Department" doesn't exactly have the best track record in front of federal magistrates, appellate courts or the US Supreme Court.
Labels: department issues
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
50 Comments:
Yet more constitutional challenges being created at the tax payers expense. The city law department is gonna love the money being tossed their way.
Better take another look at those $12 million dollar city hall revamp plans just announced to make sure the city law department has enough room for expansion at the rate this city is going.
Clearly just an attempt to move the targets off of the streets, thereby lowering the homicide rate.
rb
"'Under the right circumstances, I think it could apply,' replied Jeff Levine of the city's Law Department as he walked off with another paycheck."
"The new provision would allow “public safety officials to address a situation that threatens the public health, safety or welfare...”"
We'll need a working definition of the word "address."
These days, it pretty much means "acknowledge that a situation exists while refusing to do anything about it."
Its simple:
"R/O was ordered to make these arrests by (insert rank here)"
If Im getting tossed under the bus, Im not going alone!
“Under the right circumstances, I think it could apply,” replied Jeff Levine of the city's Law Department during a City Council Public Safety Committee hearing on the disorderly conduct statute.
---
The only question left to answer then is how much will be the eventual settlement of all the lawsuits for violation of those honest God-fearing citizens' rights while they be harassed on their way to church at 400am.
Flint Taylor and the rest, relax, your future income is now guaranteed.
Well, gee whiz, that's a fucking relief. Especially seeing as how the lawyers and aldercreatures aren't the ones whose homes and livelihoods are on the line enforcing an ordinance a "trained lawyer" won't even say is ironclad when it appears in Federal Court.
And not to put too fine a point on it, the city's "Law Department" doesn't exactly have the best track record in front of federal magistrates, appellate courts or the US Supreme Court.
well its not your house on the line in this case. IF the law itself is wrong and worded wrong then its not the officers fault its the cities fault which means the city would be sued for having the law in the first place not the officer who was acting properly enforcing the law as written. If the law was written and approved then the officer is covered as acting under good faith of the law.. the city itself is liable for writing an "unjust" law... thus the officer wouldn't even be named in the suit.. maybe a deposition would be done of the officer about any "training" or literature he received from the city about said law... so enough with the drama, the officer would be fine in this case.
it used to be called " mob action" but the last I heard this law has been wiped off the books---
Why use DC? Most of these actions are done while driving, reckless driving is a class A misd. That gives you the car and the driver. Guarantee at least 1 of the passengers will obstruct or interfere. The rest can hoof it or jump in another car that will probably be stopped again.
Make reckless driving during a funeral an impound able offense.
One less car and asshole in the funeral, $ for the crooks at city hall and probably a date at 400 w superior for the coppers.
Now they want it back.. Fuck off!
Simple solution, just wait to you are ordered to make the arrest then put “per the direct order of (insert name and rank of supervisor giving the order)” . Lets see how far we can run it up the chain of command before we run into a balless white shirt.
That Jeff Levine just fills you with confidence, doesn't he?
How about addressing the issue of absent fathers making babies with uncaring women who allow their demon spawn to grow up feral with no accountability?
Then address the issue of the taxpayers financing their existences so that their votes are enough to sway any close election.
Then we can move on to Problem Solving 102.
Betting the Chicago chapter of the ACLU is poised and waiting for this one to rear its angry head again.
Anonymous said...
"'Under the right circumstances, I think it could apply,' replied Jeff Levine of the city's Law Department as he walked off with another paycheck."
12/07/2012 12:39:00 AM
Yesterday was payday?
the revolution will not be televised
Does this apply in the schools as well. Just because the idiot Rahm wants to make a longer school day so the "kids" are off the street doesnt mean they are safer. They are still shit bag gang bangers. The only thing that happens is the teachers are in harms way as all the shit bag bangers are in one central location. Too bad for the good kids because they can't possibly be learning anything. Why do you think Rahm's kids don't go to CPS, he knows what really goes on in there but lies to the public. The Chicago way.
Well, gee whiz, that's a fucking relief. Especially seeing as how the lawyers and aldercreatures aren't the ones whose homes and livelihoods are on the line enforcing an ordinance a "trained lawyer" won't even say is ironclad when it appears in Federal Court.
And not to put too fine a point on it, the city's "Law Department" doesn't exactly have the best track record in front of federal magistrates, appellate courts or the US Supreme Court.
well its not your house on the line in this case. IF the law itself is wrong and worded wrong then its not the officers fault its the cities fault which means the city would be sued for having the law in the first place not the officer who was acting properly enforcing the law as written. If the law was written and approved then the officer is covered as acting under good faith of the law.. the city itself is liable for writing an "unjust" law... thus the officer wouldn't even be named in the suit.. maybe a deposition would be done of the officer about any "training" or literature he received from the city about said law... so enough with the drama, the officer would be fine in this case.
12/07/2012 02:02:00 AM
<><><><><><><><><><>
I can smell the Koolaide oozing from your pores, Mr. Hairgel.
"...thus the officer wouldn't even be named in the suit..."
Please confirm for me and the rest of the readers in SCC Land the fact that you live in your parents' basement and don't have asset the first to be worried about losing.
No doubt your tactical lieutenant and commander sincerely appreciate your ignorance of how things work in the real world; things that make them look like heroes at Compost meetings will be what sinks any unclouted chump (that means YOU, dummy) that gets caught-up in the mix. But you know better, dontcha? You learned all you need to know about the law in that 2 week block in the academy 4 years ago.
Your naiveté is astonishing.
This law is being pushed by tact teams. They need arrests. Most don't have the time of the job or experience to make good felony arrests
well its not your house on the line in this case. IF the law itself is wrong and worded wrong then its not the officers fault its the cities fault which means the city would be sued for having the law in the first place not the officer who was acting properly enforcing the law as written. If the law was written and approved then the officer is covered as acting under good faith of the law.. the city itself is liable for writing an "unjust" law... thus the officer wouldn't even be named in the suit.. maybe a deposition would be done of the officer about any "training" or literature he received from the city about said law... so enough with the drama, the officer would be fine in this case.
12/07/2012 02:02:00 AM
Are the angels and unicorns done flying out of your ass yet?
Who owns the streets, the decent people of Chicago, or the fucking shithead thugs? We've all seen the mayhem on the way to Mt Hope.
Seems like that would be easy pickings and a public demonstration of who is in charge.
Wait, nevermind...
Maybe if they kept disorderly, mob action,let us chase cars, do street stops without contact cards etc... do PROACTIVE police work we wouldn't be playing catch up. By we I mean they. I'm all about the 1st and 16th these days....I came on when all of the above were considered police work, not taboo
Good luck!
One Star
We used to have a provision under the old DC that we could take a person into custody for "safe keeping".
It was mainly applied to drunks, but you could keep an abusive, drunk husband away for the night too.
The ACLU stopped this, and dozenns have died because of it, but the libs don't really care about the little people
Pretty soon it will be harder to attend a funeral than to get on a plane at the airport.
Chicago will NEVER get it's law and order issue straightened out until the blue shirts get IMMUNITY. You are fucking crazy if you think I'll stick my neck out to get run over by the Rahm Express bus. Sorry pal.
IMMUNITY NOW!
Lets have some of these lawyers and aldermen attend these gang funerals to get a birdseye view for their findings and suggestions. They can really find out firsthand how the teachers& police, have failed these poor victims of society. Basically forcing these poor souls to act like savage animals and gun down each other in places of worship. Its not they fault its eyybody elses!
If anyone ever doubted that Rahm and Valerie are the brains behind Obama, they need only view these recent Rahm pronouncements. Remember when BO was a legislator he was famous for voting "Present".
Yet when Rahm of Chief of Staff, BO was bold confronting the congress. We are seeing it again because Rahm cares little about the constitution and law. We have already lost millions of dollars with these ordinances. Have we forgotten the money paid out to the panhandlers lawyers? Remember the payouts to the bad arrests made by Mass Transit? Now this!Rahm is not an attorney and thinks the Constitution means little. Between this and the Funeral Interruptions, Loevy can build a new synagogue and have it named after him.
I know "mob action" is no longer used so how about a new statute using the term "thug action"?
How about we send Tracey Ladner back to Law. She did such a bang up job representing the City on the Shakman lawsuit she appears to be highly qualified for another big time loser for the City. After she blows this one maybe 9.5 can make her a Department head.
I have a question that i'm hoping someone out there can answer:
What can you do to lawfully arrest someone who comes into a district and starts screaming and going crazy up at the desk. It's happened so many times at our front desk and it seems no one ever knows what to do. Everyone wants to lock the guy/girl up but nobody knows what charge. I would think that would have to fall under disorderly. It totally disrupts the entire station and anyone from getting any work done. Any suggestion on what to do in this case?
Thanks.
Only a fool would make an arrest for this! Considering that this city will throw a Police Officer under the Supreme Court Bus based on a i think so! I think not!
Maybe they should just ask Loevy or the northwestern idiots to construct the law. They are the ones getting paid anyway.
I will only do it when ORDERED by an EXEMPT MEMBER. All the people championing this already proven illegal action will be LONG GONE when you are sitting in the box by yourself in Federal Court. I feel for those great people who live in 022 that have to suffer from this Cemetary being turned into Lion Country Safari, but we already have laws on the books both Traffic and Criminal to these address theses disgusting displays of Anti-Civil Savagery. Rahm speaks,lives and succeeds in baseless sound bites fed to the media. I wouldn't go near this with...a 9.5 ft pole!
Yeah well this lawsuit written all over it. Only if ordered to do so and I will request that order in writing and signed by who ordered it. Remember, as Police Officers our peace can not be disturbed, we still have to have a complainant who is willing to sign.
He thinks? Great lawer skills. He beeter think to go check with the Mayor and County Board Leader and States Attorney. After all, they are the "controllers"
What can you do to lawfully arrest someone who comes into a district and starts screaming and going crazy up at the desk. It's happened so many times at our front desk and it seems no one ever knows what to do. Everyone wants to lock the guy/girl up but nobody knows what charge. I would think that would have to fall under disorderly. It totally disrupts the entire station and anyone from getting any work done. Any suggestion on what to do in this case?
Thanks.
_________________________________
Quietly tell them to leave and when they don't you lock them up for trespass.
I have a question that i'm hoping someone out there can answer:
What can you do to lawfully arrest someone who comes into a district and starts screaming and going crazy up at the desk. It's happened so many times at our front desk and it seems no one ever knows what to do. Everyone wants to lock the guy/girl up but nobody knows what charge. I would think that would have to fall under disorderly. It totally disrupts the entire station and anyone from getting any work done. Any suggestion on what to do in this case?
Thanks.
12/07/2012 12:05:00 PM
How about obstructing a peace officer since there's no way the police can conduct normal operations with that going on at the front desk.
(720 ILCS 5/31-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31-1)
Sec. 31-1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.
"We used to have a provision under the old DC that we could take a person into custody for "safe keeping". It was mainly applied to drunks, but you could keep an abusive, drunk husband away for the night too. The ACLU stopped this, and dozens have died because of it, but the libs don't really care about the little people."
12/07/2012 09:34:00 AM
Yeah, there was an "intervention" before anyone knew the word, common-sense street police work that could maybe keep a domestic out of $35,000/year IDOC custody, at least that time around. Used to be that a big old sergeant would take five minutes, come and "explain things to people," sometimes a talk would make an impression on those who had some sense remaining. I can remember when dics would come by if they had a minute, and be the police -- they had a way with them, stopped a lot of further squabbles.
It was more a thing between ordinary working people who pretty much understood each other. Back when the police cars were black and had one red light on top...Of course, the people you deal with today are many times not what they used to be either, "raised by wolves" or something.
Domestic violence is an industry now, with groups complaining that "it's underreported, we're just sitting here with this money and might not get our appropriation next year if the beatings don't pick up."
And when a swift lawyer gets a Copper sideways on the horns of this nonsense, guess who is going to get marched to the ovens to burn?
It won't be ANYONE from the City Law Department...
Rahm and his henchmen are doing everything they can to get as many Coppers "divested" and fucked up as possible.
Enforce ANYTHING but this shit...
The city has been visiting and re-visiting this thing for the last decade and a half and the courts keep kicking it back, saying that it doesn't pass constitutional muster...
That makes it easy to put Coppers on the horns of "Conspiracy To Commit Civil Rights Violations."
Then?
Eric Holder & DOJ will start hanging 1983's on individual Coppers.
*Of course you were trying to do the right thing, Officer... We all are... Before you leave, would you be so kind as to list all your current assets and liabilities?*
I have a question that i'm hoping someone out there can answer:
What can you do to lawfully arrest someone who comes into a district and starts screaming and going crazy up at the desk. It's happened so many times at our front desk and it seems no one ever knows what to do. Everyone wants to lock the guy/girl up but nobody knows what charge. I would think that would have to fall under disorderly. It totally disrupts the entire station and anyone from getting any work done. Any suggestion on what to do in this case?
Thanks.
12/07/2012 12:05:00 PM
If you honestly don't know the answer to this question or where to find the answer, you shouldn't be on the job. I smell a merit promotion in your future.
Yeah...
Rahm & McHam-Head have no answer to crime in this city other than making sure it's only Policemen getting tangled up like the aftermath of the family pooch eating the tinsel garland off the Christmas tree.
Pine scented shit everywhere full of wadded up string, needles and glitter...
Guess whose fault THAT disaster ends up being?
Guess who has to clean it up?
These people really inspire confidence with their solid and pristine reading and application of the law.
This shit has been ruled unenforcible/illegal in every iteration FOR YEARS yet the sharp as a marble city lawyers keep flinging some variation of this against the wall in hope that it actually sticks one day.
So what if it's only Coppers paying the price in financial pain, destroyed family etc...
Fuck the dumb-shit...
Start putting the mayor and the Corp. Counsel in the personal financial, family and career jack-pot with Policemen when these crooked-assed 1983's start buzzing around like those big fat-assed inch-long winter time flies in those apartments in the late unlamented Rockwell, Horner and ABLA high rises...
More yellin', swattin' and swingin' than a 70's Kung Fu movie...
Somebody's liable to get an eye put out behind this silly shit.
Anonymous said...
How about we send Tracey Ladner back to Law. She did such a bang up job representing the City on the Shakman lawsuit she appears to be highly qualified for another big time loser for the City. After she blows this one maybe 9.5 can make her a Department head.
12/07/2012 11:40:00 AM
Tracey the 1 who ups any cr on any copper no matter heir history such a prize another reason Cpd is in such bad shape inept management!
Anonymous said...
I have a question that i'm hoping someone out there can answer:
What can you do to lawfully arrest someone who comes into a district and starts screaming and going crazy up at the desk. It's happened so many times at our front desk and it seems no one ever knows what to do. Everyone wants to lock the guy/girl up but nobody knows what charge. I would think that would have to fall under disorderly. It totally disrupts the entire station and anyone from getting any work done. Any suggestion on what to do in this case?
Thanks.
12/07/2012 12:05:00 PM
---------
A police officer's peace cannot be breached, find the janitor and have him sign a complaint for disorderly conduct... Good luck
"Well its not your house on the line in this case. IF the law itself is wrong and worded wrong then its not the officers fault its the cities fault which means the city would be sued for having the law in the first place not the officer who was acting properly enforcing the law as written. If the law was written and approved then the officer is covered as acting under good faith of the law.. the city itself is liable for writing an "unjust" law... thus the officer wouldn't even be named in the suit.. maybe a deposition would be done of the officer about any "training" or literature he received from the city about said law... so enough with the drama, the officer would be fine in this case."
Spoken like someone who is not the police and has never had to worry about being sued a day in his life. Let me clue you in, the law does not have to be wrong. The law can be right and the police officer is still on the hook. He is on the hook even if it has nothing to do with a "Law." He is on the hook because we are the only ones that are vulnerable. Everyone knows this, except you. A poor prosecution by marginal lawyers leaves police officers and the detectives open for punitive damages and lets murderers walk free.
Please, for your own sake, go to the ABA, or the IBA, or the ARDC websites and troll your misinformation on other legal spectators and let the grown ups who actually fight crime on the street figure out our own culpability for moronic legal and administrative rules and devices invented by people who think they have a clue.
TEN
""Well its not your house on the line in this case. IF the law itself is wrong and worded wrong then its not the officers fault its the cities fault which means the city would be sued for having the law in the first place not the officer who was acting properly enforcing the law as written.........." blah blah blah. " I was ordered by (--).
The City will say you are the problem. They will produce a video that you will watch (and be logged) and the City will considered you "trained." You violated training.
No defense there. When sued, the lawyers include EVERYONE.
If you think the " I was just following orders" defense will work, I suggest that you find a case of Twinkies and eat them and claim you had a sugar imbalance problem. That might work better.
"Following orders" did not work at Nuremburg War Crimes trials and all those Nazi SOBs were hung.
Whatever the situation of the arrest is, it is YOUR name that is on the report and it is YOUR ass on the line.
Look out for #1 and don't step in #2.
Noticed that the gang funeral that resulted in a killing was not done in St. Sabina. Funny how that works out. Maybe Fr. Phlegler should offer his showpiece house of wor$hip to the "dearly departed". Maybe even say a few words.
Or maybe Rev. Meeks could loan his church. He certainly has the room and parking.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
I have a question that i'm hoping someone out there can answer:
What can you do to lawfully arrest someone who comes into a district and starts screaming and going crazy up at the desk. It's happened so many times at our front desk and it seems no one ever knows what to do. Everyone wants to lock the guy/girl up but nobody knows what charge. I would think that would have to fall under disorderly. It totally disrupts the entire station and anyone from getting any work done. Any suggestion on what to do in this case?
Thanks.
12/07/2012 12:05:00 PM
---------
A police officer's peace cannot be breached, find the janitor and have him sign a complaint for disorderly conduct... Good luck
12/07/2012 09:31:00 PM
There is a streaming video on the same subject. Yes, you can arrest them for D.C. just be sure to follow the video instructions.... Good Luck....
What a bunch of assholes, let them enforce that law first, they have guns and a lot of street savvy to handle the situation.
The fact that you have to ask what charge to use shows that you must work on the north side.
Post a Comment
<< Home