ACLU RENEWS CHALLENGE TO DRUG LOITERING ZONES

The ACLU yesterday formally challenged the city's request to throw out a
lawsuit against an ordinance that allows drug-loitering-free zones in
Annapolis.

In the cross-motion for summary judgment, filed in U.S. District Court in
Baltimore, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland also asked Judge
Catherine C. Blake to rule in favor of its initial claim -- that the law is
unconstitutional.

ACLU attorney Dwight H. Sullivan said he hoped the organization's latest
legal move would prompt Judge Blake to take action and make a decision.
Cases of this nature are typically resolved without a trial, he said.

The ACLU filed its lawsuit on behalf of the county National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People and three city residents on Feb. 16, two
days after the City Council approved the first drug-loitering-free zone in
the Newtowne 20 neighborhood.

Under the law passed in October, neighborhood associations or residents can
apply to have an area designated as "drug-loitering-free" if three or more
drug arrests have occurred in the area in the two years preceding the
application date.

Once the designation is made, police can order convicted drug offenders to
move on if they're under a court order barring them from areas with high
drug activity.

The law also says police can ask someone to move on if they have reliable
information that the person is engaged in drug activity or behaving in a
manner suggesting drug activity.

Despite the addition of several more zones, the ordinance has yet to be
enforced.

The ACLU claims the ordinance violates the First Amendment by allowing
police officers to order people out of the zone for activities such as
conducting a voter registration drive, making change for a bus or talking
with friends.

Mr. Sullivan has also said repeatedly that the ordinance is too vague and
gives police too much discretion.

The zones have also drawn sharp opposition from some residents, who have
said they limit freedom of assembly and target predominantly
African-American communities.

But Alderman Herbert H. McMillan, author of the law, has said many residents
wanted the measure as a way to work with police and make their neighborhoods
safer.

Also, many of the residents who have applied for the zones are
African-American, he has said.

The city asked the court in May to throw out the lawsuit. It also alleged in
its motion for summary judgment that the NAACP has no standing to sue the
city in this case, because the group or its members have not been injured by
the adoption of the law.

But the ACLU disagreed yesterday, saying adoption and enforcement of the
ordinance would pose a "credible threat" to people who live and work in
Annapolis -- especially those who spend time in areas designated as
drug-loitering-free zones.

"The NAACP's participation in this lawsuit is entirely consistent with its
purpose, which is to "take lawful action' to eradicate race-based
discrimination and advance the interests of African-Americans and other
people of color," the cross-motion said.

"There are not a lot of facts in dispute in this case," Mr. Sullivan said.

City Attorney Paul Goetzke agreed the facts are not in dispute, but said the
city still believes the law is legal.

"We're confident that the ordinance is constitutional and that the city will
prevail in this case," he said.

The city has two weeks to file a response to the cross-motion. The ACLU will
then have a chance to reply to the city's response.

Mr. Goetzke said he expects a hearing to be scheduled sometime in September.