Court Opinion

ID: 9710180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:03:58.008243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.936431
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE TULLY, dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Chicago municipal ordinance section 8 — 20—040(b)(5) is not unconstitutionally vague. In its opinion, the majority correctly sets out the standard against which vagueness challenges are to be measured. However, I believe the ordinance is vague with respect to the term "resident.” Section 8 — 20—040(b)(5) provides no definition of who is a resident or, alternatively, who is a nonresident. Another unanswered question is, when does a nonresident become a resident of the City of Chicago? Does one become a resident by staying overnight, a few days, or a few weeks in Chicago? Clearly, a line must be drawn somewhere but was not done by the city council. It is fundamental to our sense of ordered liberty that a citizen be able to read the law, know what it means, and conduct his affairs in accordance with it. In the case sub judice, this was not possible due to the uncertainty over the term "resident” and, thus, I believe this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and violative of the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause. Consequently, I would, reverse the circuit court of Cook County.