Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26. 2002 <br />previous speaker who told of his problems with the park by his house. He asked Councilmember <br />Pfeifer to explain in detail how this ordinance will help that particular problem which is a very real <br />problem. In regards to training, since everyone is going to be trained, are the thugs going to get <br />lessons on deportment or behavior or are just the law- abiding people going to get those lessons. Mr. <br />Cierzniak stated that he does not believe this ordinance will make any difference in the long run. <br />Any elderly person who thinks that this somehow is going to make their life better is just not <br />thinking clearly and he doesn't believe those elderly people think that way at all about this <br />ordinance. <br />There was no one else present wishing to speak in opposition to this bill. <br />In rebuttal, Councilmember Pfeifer advised that the concern valid for her to address is to remind <br />people that this ordinance will address very specific behavior which is gang behavior and criminal <br />behavior that is defined by the Indiana state law. She reiterated that citizens came to her and asked <br />her to do something about the problem and the idea of this loitering law came from several police <br />officers and it is because of that that this ordinance was drafted. She noted that she never said and <br />never will say that this ordinance is going to be a silver bullet and it is not going to take care of all <br />the ills. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that she feels that as a Councilmember she has a certain moral <br />obligation. When she ran for office her pledge to the people who voted for her was that if they had <br />issues going on in their neighborhoods and if there was something that she could do about it that she <br />would. This is the best ordinance that all of the legal minds and the Council could come up with. <br />It is a first step in dealing with inappropriate gang and criminal behavior that is going on in our <br />community. There is no constitutional right to loiter, there is no constitutional right to stand on the <br />sidewalk and use foul language, there is no constitutional right to deal drugs, there is no <br />constitutional right to intimidate a person who wants to come outside and sit by their house and that <br />is what this ordinance addresses. She noted that she is just as concerned about men of color as <br />anyone else and is also concerned about police officers who put their lives on the line to keep <br />citizens safe. Councilmember Pfeifer stated that she has every belief that police officers care about <br />this community just like the Council does and she asked them to please vote for this ordinance. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand noted that she would like to address some issues raised <br />by Mrs. Kopala and Mr. Cierzniak. With regard to Mrs. Kopala's specific example regarding her <br />arrest, a City ordinance was not involved because the City Council is prohibited from having any <br />criminal sanctions with regard to that behavior so it had to be an alleged state law violation of <br />trespass. The only section, in addition to the gang or narcotics related loitering that is addressed <br />in this ordinance, is loitering that would obstruct a public way and is located in Section 13 -7 of the <br />proposed ordinance. This ordinance clarifies what is currently on the books. No person shall loiter <br />or remain in a public place for the purpose of obstructing by vehicular or pedestrian traffic which <br />results in impeding the use of that public way. The conduct referred to by Mrs. Kopala is not <br />covered by this proposed ordinance. In regards to Mr. Cierzniak's request of Councilwoman <br />Pfeifer to give an example of what the police officers would do in the situation described by Mr. <br />Sagendorf, Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand directed Mr. Cierzniak to Section 13 -4 of the <br />proposed ordinance which is entitled "Narcotics Related Loitering Prohibited" which specifically <br />follows the U.S. Supreme Court guidelines with regard to how a police officer using sight and sound <br />of what that officer is observing then having to inform all such persons that they are engaged in <br />loitering in a targeted area and they would have to order those persons to disperse. Also, they would <br />have to inform them that they would be subject to penalties and if they failed to abide by that order <br />to leave that area that they could be subject to further penalties. She noted that as Councilwoman <br />Pfeifer pointed out the City of Chicago had almost seventeen thousand (17,000) individuals that <br />were moved on and not arrested. This ordinance is intended to take back those areas that are <br />targeted with either gang or drug related loitering. <br />Councilmember Coleman made a motion that substitute Bill No. 42 -02 go favorably to full Council. <br />Councilmember Kelly seconded the motion. <br />Councilmember White noted that she has raised some concerns about this particular ordinance and <br />she would like to thank Councilmembers Pfeifer and King and the City Attorney. She noted that her <br />concerns were that if the City is going to have this type of ordinance then it should be City wide and <br />that is being addressed. She further noted that she is concerned about the enforcement of this <br />