CITY DRUG FIGHT WAS NOBLE, BUT NEVER UNDERSTOOD

THE CITY'S noble effort to crack down on drug dealers is atop the
scrap heap where many other noble, but potentially unconstitutional,
drug laws end up. When the aldermen embarked on the campaign to stop
drug dealers with an anti-loitering law, they had hoped to give the
police one more weapon to keep drug salesmen out of troubled
neighborhoods.

But the drug-loitering-free zones challenged the Constitution, and
that's what a federal court eventually decided after a yearlong court
battle that cost the city $30,000 and lots of time. That the aldermen
decided to cut their losses and not appeal the court ruling upset the
law's ardent supporter, Alderman Herb McMillan, and those people who
are still plagued by drug dealers outside their homes.

It's hard to fault the aldermen who saw that an appeal would cost
even more time and risk the loss of more money. Besides losing the
fight, the city had to negotiate how much it would have to pay the
American Civil Liberties Union for legal fees. The ACLU estimated its
fees to be $240,000 but settled for $170,000 as long as the city
dropped its appeal. (The money comes from the city's insurance fund,
but it's still taxpayers' money). So the city loses its case, it has
no drug-loitering law AND it has to pay off the ACLU.

Maybe we're wrong, but it just seems this effort was miscast from the
beginning. A well-intentioned Mr. McMillan wanted desperately to help
the police cope with drug dealers. Fed-up law-abiding citizens in
drug-infested communities supported him. When he took his cause to
the council floor, enough aldermen supported him to get the law
approved -- and the lawsuit filed.

Surely, the supporting aldermen understood the scale of a task that
would attract the ACLU's lawyers who were experienced in
constitutional issues -- certainly more experienced than city
attorneys. Surely, the supporters of the bill thought there would be
an appeal no matter which side won. It was obvious that this was
going to be a bruising and expensive battle with the potential for
victory, but greater potential for loss.

So when the city lost and the aldermen considered an appeal, why
didn't they stick to the script? Probably because they didn't believe
they could win their appeal and that the ACLU's claim for attorney
fees would grow even larger. Or maybe they just changed their minds.
We think it was the latter.

Mr. McMillan feels that his supporters let him down, and we can't
blame him, since they knew what the city was getting into when the
lawsuit was filed. If there is a lesson to be learned for the
aldermen, it is that they shouldn't take on the Constitution (or any
serious matter) unless they have a better understanding of their
commitment.