Most of the 64 people arrested in a major operation were already on the Chicago Police Department’s drug crime “watch list.”
Authorities execute 35 different search warrants at several dozen South Side businesses and homes; the arrests included 50 felony drug charges, three felony charges of unlawful weapons possession, and a number of unspecified misdemeanor charges. Interim police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said that the “targeted mission” would continue as “part of an ongoing initiative to help further reduce the ability of gangs to inflict harm in Chicago’s neighborhoods.”
To prepare the warrants, CPD relied on the Strategic Subject List, which contains about 1,300 names of individuals who police believe are either likely to commit a gang-related crime or likely to be a victim of such an offense. Yale University sociologist Andrew Papachristos, who is considered an expert on Chicago street gangs, compiled the list based on a five-year study.
Watch Lists
The 21st Century equivalent to the old “most wanted lists” have stirred considerable controversy in constitutional law circles. Whereas these lists once contained the names of persons who had at least been arrested for a specific offense, membership on modern lists, like the Strategic Subject List, might be based on nothing more than association. As a matter of fact, before officials changed the SSL’s name, it was rather ominously called the Two Degrees of Association list.
Latif et al v. Holder et al, a case concerning the government’s “no-fly” list, is currently bouncing back and forth between an Oregon federal district judge and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Although the ACLU’s proclamation that a court declared that the no-fly list to be unconstitutional was somewhat overblown, there are some serious issues surrounding government watch lists.
Shortly after 9/11, the FBI compiled the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB or “the watch list”) which gives airport security guards the power to prevent certain people from boarding airplanes. In most cases, the people on the list do not know they are unable to fly until they are barred from an airplane.
The thirteen plaintiffs in Latif are all United States citizens who, largely by virtue of their national origins and previous associations, are considered terrorist threats. Both the district judge and several appeals judges have been troubled by several aspects of such watch lists:
- Due Process: At one point, an appellate judge asked a government lawyer who a person would contact to challenge his or her placement on the list, and the lawyer did not have much of an answer.
- Reasonable Basis: In most cases, police must have reasonable suspicion to detain and probable cause to arrest, but there is no such requirement for watch lists.
- Fourth Amendment: This provision gives citizens the right to be “secure” in their persons and property, a right that watch lists seem to impinge.
The same arguments can be made for the proliferation of registries, like the sex offender registry and methamphetamine registry, although courts have carved out exceptions in some cases.
Reach out to Zealous Attorneys
At Glasgow & Olsson, we are committed to upholding the rights of Schaumburg criminal defendants. Contact us today for a confidential consultation, because the sooner you call, the more effective your defense will be.