262 N.E.2d 473 (Ill. 1970), 41945, City of Chicago v. Fort
| Docket Nº | 41945. |
| Citation | 262 N.E.2d 473, 46 Ill.2d 12 |
| Party Name | CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellee, v. Johnny Lee FORT et al., Appellants. |
| Case Date | May 27, 1970 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Page 473
Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1970.
Page 474
Marshall Patner, of Patner & Karaganis, and Paul E. Goldstein, of Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock, McDugald & Parsons, Chicago, for appellants.
Richard L. Curry, Acting Corp. Counsel, Chicago (Marvin E. Aspen and Oliver D. Ferguson, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.
[46 Ill.2d 13] SCHAEFER, Justice.
The defendants, Johnny Lee Fort, Edward Bey, Andrew McChristian, Jeff Fort, and Beuna Bey, were charged with disorderly conduct in violation of section 193--1(d) of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago. They waived a trial by jury and on their trial before the court they offered no evidence, and moved for a 'directed verdict' of acquittal at the close of the City's case. The trial judge denied the motion and fined each defendant $50 plus costs of $5. Constitutional questions are involved, and the defendants have appealed directly to this court.
Section 193--1 provides in pertinent part: 'A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly: * * * (d) Fails to obey a lawful order of dispersal by a person known by him to be a peace officer under circumstances where three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct in the immediate vicinity, which acts are likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm; * * *.'
Officer Ronald Smith of the Chicago Police Department testified that while he and his partners were driving their squad car east on 67th Street in the City of Chicago after midnight on July 29, 1968, they saw a 'large crowd' of young men and women on the sidewalk between 1522 and 1527 East 67th Street. 'Several fellows' were sitting or lying on top of parked cars in a city parking lot adjacent to 1525--1527 East 67th Street and 15 or 20 people were standing in such a way as to block the entrances to a tavern, a laundromat, and a poolroom, and to cause other persons to have to walk in the street in order to pass. The officers stopped their car and Officer
Page 475
Smith ascertained from the men that the parked cars upon which they were lying did not belong to them. He testified that he ordered the crowd to disperse and that he 'told them the next time we come through we're going to come through with a wagon.' As [46 Ill.2d 14] the squad car pulled away east on 67th Street, Smith observed that the crowd 'began to walk slowly in one direction or another, but * * * I could look back and see them coming back, sitting up on the cars and loitering around the laundromat and poolroom and the tavern.'
The officers drove east for several blocks, turned around, and as they were driving west again on 67th Street, they noticed that Theotis Clark, who was wanted for armed robbery and aggravated battery, walked up and started talking to some of the defendants. The officers called for a patrol wagon to stand by in the immediate vicinity, drove to the scene and 'gathered all the people that we could up,' including Theotis Clark. The five defendants in this case were informed by the officers that 'this was the second time tonight we had been there within the hour and they were all under arrest for disorderly conduct and refusing to obey a police order.'
The defendants contend that the City presented insufficient evidence to support a conviction under section 193--1(d). But the uncontroverted testimony establishes that three or more persons were engaged in disorderly conduct in the immediate vicinity of the arrests, which acts were likely to cause serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, that a person known to be a police officer ordered the group to disperse, and that the defendants failed to obey that order. The term 'disorderly conduct' as used in subsection 193--1(d) of the Chicago Municipal Code incorporates by reference the elements of disorderly conduct contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
64 P.3d 282 (Hawai'i App. 2003), 23815, State v. Lindstedt
...[6] For other unsuccessful void for vagueness challenges to failure to disperse/disorderly conduct statutes, see City of Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473 (1970); State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316 (Alaska 1975); State v. Ausmus, 178 Or.App. 321, 37 P.3d 1024 (2001); Sabel v. State, ......
-
279 N.E.2d 450 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1972), 54922, People v. Leach
...was the issue in this case either presented or decided. People v. Crockett, 41 Ill.2d 226, 242 N.E.2d 235; City of Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473; People v. Sullivan, 46 Ill.2d 399, 263 N.E.2d 38; City of Rockford v. Grayned, 46 Ill.2d 492, 263 N.E.2d 866; People v. Jackson, ......
-
290 N.E.2d 236 (Ill. 1972), 44706, People v. Witzkowski
...of Chicago v. Weiss, 51 Ill.2d 113, 281 N.E.2d 310, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S.Ct. 122, 34 L.Ed.2d 153; City of Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473; City of Chicago v. Jacobs, 46 Ill.2d 214, 263 N.E.2d 47, and City of Chicago v. Greene, 47 Ill.2d 30, 264 N.E.2d 163, cert. de......
-
281 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. 1972), 42487, City of Chicago v. Weiss
...of Chicago is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face. They [51 Ill.2d 119] acknowledge that in City of Chicago v. Fort (1970), 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473; City of Chicago v. Jacobs (1970), 46 Ill.2d 214, 263 N.E.2d 47, and City of Chicago v. Greene (1970), 47 Ill.2d 30, 264 N.......
-
64 P.3d 282 (Hawai'i App. 2003), 23815, State v. Lindstedt
...[6] For other unsuccessful void for vagueness challenges to failure to disperse/disorderly conduct statutes, see City of Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473 (1970); State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316 (Alaska 1975); State v. Ausmus, 178 Or.App. 321, 37 P.3d 1024 (2001); Sabel v. State, ......
-
279 N.E.2d 450 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1972), 54922, People v. Leach
...was the issue in this case either presented or decided. People v. Crockett, 41 Ill.2d 226, 242 N.E.2d 235; City of Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473; People v. Sullivan, 46 Ill.2d 399, 263 N.E.2d 38; City of Rockford v. Grayned, 46 Ill.2d 492, 263 N.E.2d 866; People v. Jackson, ......
-
290 N.E.2d 236 (Ill. 1972), 44706, People v. Witzkowski
...of Chicago v. Weiss, 51 Ill.2d 113, 281 N.E.2d 310, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S.Ct. 122, 34 L.Ed.2d 153; City of Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473; City of Chicago v. Jacobs, 46 Ill.2d 214, 263 N.E.2d 47, and City of Chicago v. Greene, 47 Ill.2d 30, 264 N.E.2d 163, cert. de......
-
281 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. 1972), 42487, City of Chicago v. Weiss
...of Chicago is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face. They [51 Ill.2d 119] acknowledge that in City of Chicago v. Fort (1970), 46 Ill.2d 12, 262 N.E.2d 473; City of Chicago v. Jacobs (1970), 46 Ill.2d 214, 263 N.E.2d 47, and City of Chicago v. Greene (1970), 47 Ill.2d 30, 264 N.......