In Chicago v Morales (1999), the Supreme Court ruled thatA. police must inform suspects of their rights and liberties.B. the government cannot transfer to Chicago any prisoners held at Gilmo.C....
In Chicago v Morales (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that
A. police must inform suspects of their rights and liberties.
B. the government cannot transfer to Chicago any prisoners held at Gilmo.
C. police cannot arrest people for "loitering with no apparent reason".
D. "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric".
E. "gang-banging" is a form of domestic terrorism.
which is the answer? thanks!
The best answer to this question is Option C. This is the only option that is in any way related to the substance of this case, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1999.
In this case, Chicago had passed a law saying that “criminal street gang members” could not loiter in public. That is, they could not hang out somewhere in public for no apparent purpose. The Court ruled that the law was so vague that a reasonable person would not know what conduct was legal and what conduct was illegal. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional. This is not exactly the same thing as saying that the police cannot arrest someone for loitering. Instead, it is saying that a law has to specify more clearly what loitering means. However, Option C is the only option that is related to the Court’s holding in Morales, which means that Option C must be the right answer.