Arresting Justice: Juvenile Arrests in Chicago

by First Defense Legal Aid (Caitlin Patterson) and Project NIA (Mariame Kaba)

Designed by Caitlin Seidler & Maps by Dan Cooper

June 2011

ARRESTING JUSTICE: A Report About Juvenile Arrests in Chicago 2009 & 2010

1


INTRODUCTION: Why this report?The police are among the most visible and visceral representatives of state power. In today’s society, their presence seems ubiquitous. They serve as the gatekeepers to the criminal legal system and play a critical role in feeding the prison industrial complex.

Six million Americans a year have involuntary contact with the police, excluding traffic stops (Weaver and Lerman, 2010). These encounters are often especially fraught and traumatizing for youth. Young people of color, in particular, have spoken out eloquently about the unwanted contacts with police in their communities.

In Chicago, thousands of juveniles are arrested every year by law enforcement. There are six possible decision points1 in the interaction between police and young people. Police have the power to decide the following:

1. Whether to conduct an investigatory stop involving a young person;

2. Whether to arrest a young person;

3. Whether to release a young person from police custody with a station adjustment;

4. Whether to refer a young person to Juvenile Court or to the Felony Review Division of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for prosecution;

5. Whether to release a young person from police custody with no charges; and

6. Whether to request that a young person be held in detention until his initial court appearance.

Each of these decision points involves the police officers’ use of discretion. These points of con-tact determine whether or not a particular young person will ultimately be referred to court and held in detention.

While we know that thousands of young people in Chicago come into contact with law enforce-ment daily, there is no broad-based public outcry over this reality. Arresting Justice is an attempt to provide relevant, timely and accessible data about juvenile arrests to community members in Chicago in the hopes of spurring action. The sponsors of this report are First Defense Legal Aid and Project NIA.

First Defense Legal Aid (FDLA) has been dedicated to issues of indigent defense, police ac-countability, and the protection of civil rights for over 15 years. FDLA’s mission is two-pronged:

1 See the Appendix for a more detailed consideration of these 6 decision points regarding police interaction with young people.

2


to ensure equal justice to people in custody at Chicago Police stations and to educate the people of Chicago about the power of their Constitutional rights during police encounters.

Project NIA’s mission is to dramatically reduce the reliance on arrest, detention, and incarcera-tion for addressing youth crime and to instead promote the use of restorative and transformative practices, a concept that relies on community-based alternatives. Through community engage-ment, education, participatory action research, and capacity-building, Project NIA facilitates the creation of community-focused responses to violence and crime.

Both organizations believe that the first step to dramatically reducing juvenile arrests in Chi-cago is to mobilize our broader community to address the problem. Timely and relevant data documenting the scope of the issue is critical to such mobilization efforts. We hope that this re-port serves as a clarion call to those who are interested in preventing youth from getting caught up in the juvenile and criminal legal systems.

Acknowledgments

This report was produced and written by Mariame Kaba (Project NIA) and Caitlin Patterson (First Defense Legal Aid). We are especially grateful to Dan Cooper from the Institute on Public Safety & Social Justice at the Adler School for the terrific maps that are included in this report and to Caitlin Seidler for designing and laying out this report.

3


SECTION 1—Total Juvenile Arrests in ChicagoChicago’s Police Department is the second largest in the United States, employing 14,973 mem-bers and serving 2.9 million residents.2 Chicago has 25 police districts that cover 77 community areas. According to the Chicago Police Department, there were 27,563 arrests of youth 17 and under in 2010 in the city of Chicago (some youth may be arrested more than once). There were an estimated 432,991 youth 17 and under living in Chicago in 2009.3

A police officer has the power to decide whether to release or arrest a juvenile if the officer rea-sonably believes that person committed a crime. Arrests appear on a young person’s criminal record even when the youth was released without charge, given a station adjustment, or other-wise never convicted.

In the following table, the type of offense is provided for informational purposes, giving context to the number of total arrests. Data is not available for the numbers of youth with whom the police have contact but do not formally arrest.

Total Number of Arrests of Persons 17 and Under (City of Chicago, 2009 & 2010)

OFFENSE TYPE 2009 2010 % Change

Felony 6,424 6,068 -5.5%

Misdemeanor 20,153 18,182 -9.8%

Other* 1,124 809 -28%

Total (based on charges) 27,701 25,059

Total (based on CPD district numbers)

31,224 27,563 -11.7%

Source: Chicago Police Department’s Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 2011), provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by First Defense Legal Aid.

*Municipal Ordinance Arrests

2 Chicago Police Department 2009 Annual Report: A Year in Review—Available at: https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/09AR.pdf

3 City of Chicago Department of Family & Support Services, 2009 Estimated Population and Poverty by Com-munity Area: Ages 6-17 (June 2011), provided in response to a request by Project NIA.

4


From 2003 to 2009, the total number of juvenile (16 and under) arrests in Chicago declined by 25.7%.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

27,821 28,132 28,751 26,345 24,611 23,018 20,664

5


SECTION 2—Demographic Information about Juvenile Arrests in Chicago Unfortunately, we were unable to access juvenile arrest data broken down by race and gender for 2010 in time for the publication of this report. As such, we will rely on 2008 and 2009 Chica-go Police Department (CPD) data to illustrate the demographic breakdown of juvenile arrests. Below is information about juvenile arrests by age, gender and race. Eighty-four percent (84%) of juveniles 16 or under arrested in 2009 were male and sixteen percent (16%) were female.

Gender 16 or under 17–20 years old TOTAL

Male 17,327 (84%) 33,139 50,466

Female 3,337 (16%) 4,711 8,048

Unknown 0 2 2

TOTAL 20,664 37,852 58,516

Source: Chicago Police Department 2009 Annual Report: A Year in Review

According to the Chicago Police Department4, in 2008, 69.2% of juveniles arrested were fifteen and sixteen years old. Fourteen year olds, the next largest group, accounted for 17.6% of juve-nile arrests.

In 2008, whites accounted for 3.5% of all juvenile arrests, Hispanics accounted for 18%, and African Americans accounted for 78.1% (Chicago Police Department, 2009).

4 Juvenile Arrest Trends 2003–2008, Chicago Police Department (March 2009) – Available at: https://portal.chi-cagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Juvenile%20Reports/JuvArr2008.pdf

6


SECTION 3—Juvenile Arrests by District and Community Areas Most of the juvenile arrests in 2010 (63%) happened in 10 out of the 25 districts. In order of most to least, these districts are: 8, 11, 15, 4, 6, 3, 5, 7, 25, and 10 (see map).

Juvenile Arrests by District—Persons 17 and Under (City of Chicago, 2009–2010)

District 2009 % Total 2009 2010 % Total 2010 TOTAL 09–1001 676 2.17 685 2.49 1,36102 873 2.8 731 2.65 1,60403 1,942 6.22 1,660 6.02 3,60204 2,001 6.41 1,914 6.94 3,91505 1,627 5.21 1,464 5.31 3,09106 2,040 6.53 1,674 6.07 3,71407 1,665 5.33 1,447 5.25 3,11208 2,565 8.21 2,247 8.15 4,81209 1,671 5.35 1,334 4.84 3,00510 1,349 4.32 1,348 4.89 2,69711 2,478 7.94 2,141 7.77 4,61912 957 3.06 880 3.19 1,83713 551 1.76 417 1.51 96814 815 2.61 588 2.13 1,40315 2,021 6.47 1,975 7.17 3,99616 685 2.19 494 1.79 1,17917 1,031 3.3 959 3.48 1,99018 662 2.12 770 2.79 1,43219 317 1.02 318 1.15 63520 559 1.79 590 2.14 1,14921 443 1.42 472 1.71 91522 1,266 4.05 1,129 4.1 2,39523 248 0.79 212 0.77 46024 920 2.95 708 2.57 1,62825 1,862 5.96 1,406 5.1 3,268TOTAL 31,224 99.98% 27,563 99.98% 58,787Source: Chicago Police Department’s Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 2011)

7


We were not able to obtain youth population data for each Chicago Police District in time for the publication of this report. We believe that youth living in certain Chicago communities are disproportionately impacted by the police and criminal/delinquency court systems. We hope to obtain per-district youth population data in order to create an index that describes the level of policing per capita in various Chicago neighborhoods.

The following table is provided as a reference for people interested in exploring how many youth are potentially affected by the policing practices in various districts. Note that several communities are served by more than one police district, and most police districts cover more than one community area.

8


Chicago Youth Population (Ages 6–17) by Community Area—2009 (Estimated)Rank2009 Community Area

Total 6–17

% City’s Youth

% Poor

12–14(E.S.)

15–17(H.S.) Police Districts

1 25 – Austin 19,401 4.48 35.2 5,117 5,203 11 • 15 • 25

2 19 – Belmont Cragin 15,762 3.64 27.3 4,195 3,334 25

3 30 – South Lawndale 13,895 3.21 33.9 3,450 3,495 08 • 09 • 10

4 66 – Chicago Lawn 12,124 2.8 35 3,433 3,029 08

5 23 – Humboldt Park 11,673 2.7 46.9 3,018 3,191 11 • 13 • 14 • 25

6 2 – West Ridge 11,461 2.65 23.5 2,601 2,773 20 • 24

7 15 – Portage Park 11,066 2.56 21.3 2,724 2,803 16 • 17

8 22 – Logan Square 10,720 2.48 36.1 2,714 2,816 14 • 25

9 71 – Auburn Gresham 10,703 2.47 39.1 2,703 2,948 06 • 22

10 61 – New City 10,371 2.4 46.2 2,364 2,493 09

11 58 – Brighton Park 9,566 2.21 26.3 2,274 2,596 08 • 09

12 43 – South Shore 9,278 2.14 46.3 2,629 2,317 03 • 04

13 70 – Ashburn 9,077 2.1 12.6 2,246 2,298 06 • 08

14 63 – Gage Park 9,007 2.08 25.2 2,488 2,083 08 • 09

15 49 – Roseland 8,850 2.04 39.2 2,289 2,618 05 • 06 • 22

16 29 – North Lawndale 8,830 2.04 56.4 1,881 2,747 10 • 11

17 67 – West Englewood 8,738 2.02 49.9 2,601 2,549 07

18 24 – West Town 8,703 2.01 30.3 2,436 2,092 13 • 14

19 16 – Irving Park 8,308 1.92 13.1 1,939 1,851 17

20 14 – Albany Park 7,950 1.84 26.1 1,880 1,846 17

21 68 – Englewood 7,546 1.74 59.4 1,628 2,100 02 • 03 • 06 • 07

22 46 – South Chicago 7,503 1.73 39.4 1,962 1,777 04

23 53 – West Pullman 7,460 1.72 33.2 2,059 2,067 05

24 65 – West Lawn 6,999 1.62 20.5 1,411 1,614 08

25 69 – Greater Grand Crossing 6,853 1.58 47 1,485 2,210 03 • 06 • 07

26 17 – Dunning 6,582 1.52 10.3 1,538 1,886 16 • 25

27 52 – Eastside 6,184 1.43 26.8 1,427 1,433 04

28 31 – Lower West Side 6,095 1.41 38.9 1,535 1,485 09 • 10 • 12

29 1 – Rogers Park 6,008 1.39 35.6 1,526 1,669 24

30 56 – Garfield Ridge 5,880 1.36 16.5 1,474 1,404 08 • 10

31 21 – Avondale 5,607 1.29 25.4 1,326 1,348 14 • 17 • 25

32 44 – Chatham 5,431 1.25 31.8 1,754 1,637 04 • 06

33 28 – Near West Side 5,429 1.25 41 1,688 1,480 10 • 11 • 12 • 13

34 10 – Norwood Park 5,399 1.25 6.1 1,311 1,155 16

35 20 – Hermosa 5,281 1.22 24.9 1,260 1,367 25

36 73 – Washington Heights 4,888 1.13 25.5 1,383 1,199 22

37 7 – Lincoln Park 4,883 1.13 8.3 1167 943 18 • 19 • 23

38 27 – East Garfield Park 4,759 1.1 52.6 1,206 1,483 11 • 13

39 3 – Uptown 4,745 1.1 43.9 1,013 1,156 19 • 20 • 23

9


Rank2009 Community Area

Total 6-17

% City’s Youth

% Poor

12–14(E.S.)

15–17(H.S.) Police Districts

40 60 – Bridgeport 4,546 1.05 22.2 1,003 1,389 09

41 76 – O’Hare 4,516 1.04 16.1 1,180 1,289 16

42 26 – West Garfield Park 4,348 1 50.4 1,159 1,103 11

43 6 – Lakeview 4,137 0.96 5.1 856 730 19 • 23

44 72 – Beverly 4,132 0.95 4.3 1,008 1,028 22

45 42 – Woodlawn 4,119 0.95 41.4 1,218 974 03 • 21

46 75 – Morgan Park 4,023 0.93 13.3 929 1,285 22

47 4 – Lincoln Square 3,994 0.92 25.7 1,001 1,117 19 • 20

48 38 – Grand Boulevard 3,776 0.87 48.2 1,278 881 02

49 11 – Jefferson Park 3,709 0.86 4.8 1,048 961 16

50 8 – Near North Side 3,654 0.84 38.9 920 932 18

51 77 – Edgewater 3,565 0.82 22 764 957 20 • 24

52 51 – South Deering 3,537 0.82 35.1 1,043 829 04

53 74 – Mount Greenwood 3,513 0.81 2.9 767 767 22

54 64 – Clearing 3,469 0.8 6.4 776 947 08

55 62 – West Elsdon 3,263 0.75 14.6 749 888 08

56 12 – Forest Glen 3,212 0.74 6.5 688 714 16 • 17

57 13 – North Park 3,062 0.71 4.4 852 711 17

58 40 – Washington Park 2,860 0.66 61.6 795 814 02 • 03

59 59 – McKinley Park 2,531 0.58 21.7 514 651 09

60 39 – Kenwood 2,442 0.56 43.4 605 630 21

61 18 – Montclare 2,399 0.55 10 514 707 25

62 41 – Hyde Park 2,355 0.54 17.5 569 518 03 • 21

63 5 – North Center 2,190 0.51 4.8 357 480 19

64 48 – Calumet Heights 2,187 0.51 26.5 532 589 04

65 57 – Archer Heights 2,127 0.49 17.1 713 437 08

66 35 – Douglas 2,084 0.48 34.9 452 479 02 • 21

67 45 – Avalon Park 1,881 0.43 35.8 481 632 04

68 55 – Hegewisch 1,867 0.43 20.9 331 382 04

69 34 – Armour Square 1,738 0.4 18.6 286 462 01 • 09 • 21

70 54 – Riverdale 1,623 0.37 72.6 446 265 05

71 50 – Pullman 1,574 0.36 38.6 390 387 05

72 9 – Edison Park 1,486 0.34 3.8 345 269 16

73 33 – Near South Side 1,308 0.3 29.5 376 228 01 • 21

74 47 – Burnside 1,034 0.24 46.9 364 263 04

75 36 – Oakland 805 0.19 38.3 161 199 02 • 21

76 37 – Fuller Park 579 0.13 54.4 245 169 02 • 09

77 32 – Loop 331 neg. 8.8 15 58 01

Source: City of Chicago Department of Family & Support Services, 2009 Estimated Population and Poverty by Community Area: Ages 6-17 (June 2011)

10


SECTION 4—Juvenile Arrests & Offenses by District and by Volume The following tables report the numbers of arrests of people age seventeen and younger in each Chicago Police District in calendar years 2009-2010. Juveniles may be held in police custody while they are under investigation for criminal offenses. However, some juveniles are released without being charged: not all juvenile arrests result in court referral. Additionally, some ju-veniles may be arrested for multiple offenses during the same incident, so these data describe numbers of arrests, not numbers of individuals who were arrested or ultimately prosecuted.

Juvenile Arrests & Offenses in Each Chicago Police District – Rank by Volume

Rank Total Juvenile Arrests Felony Arrests Misdemeanor Arrests

2009 District No. District No. District No.

1 08 – Chicago Lawn 2,565 11 – Harrison 803 08 – Chicago Lawn 1,866

2 11 – Harrison 2,478 15 – Austin 505 04 – South Chicago 1,413

3 06 – Gresham 2,040 07 – Englewood 497 06 – Gresham 1,386

4 15 – Austin 2,021 08 – Chicago Lawn 485 03 – Grand Crossing 1,330

5 04 – South Chicago 2,001 06 – Gresham 434 25 – Grand Central 1,177

6 03 – Grand Crossing 1,942 05 – Pullman 391 09 – Deering 1,150

7 25 – Grand Central 1,862 03 – Grand Crossing 386 11 – Harrison 1,118

8 09 – Deering 1,671 25 – Grand Central 355 05 – Pullman 1,085

9 07 – Englewood 1,665 10 – Ogden 354 15 – Austin 1,022

10 05 – Pullman 1,627 04 – South Chicago 342 07 – Englewood 876

11 10 – Ogden 1,349 09 – Deering 305 22 – Morgan Park 871

12 22 – Morgan Park 1,266 22 – Morgan Park 285 17 – Albany Park 787

13 17 – Albany Park 1,031 02 – Wentworth 230 10 – Ogden 741

14 12 – Monroe 957 24 – Rogers Park 151 12 – Monroe 688

15 24 – Rogers Park 920 12 – Monroe 136 24 – Rogers Park 618

16 02 – Wentworth 873 14 – Shakespeare 136 16 – Jefferson Park 543

17 14 – Shakespeare 815 18 – Near North 131 02 – Wentworth 531

18 16 – Jefferson Park 685 17 – Albany Park 105 01 – Central 488

19 01 – Central 676 13 – Wood 94 14 – Shakespeare 480

20 18 – Near North 662 21 – Prairie 89 18 – Near North 461

21 20 – Foster 559 01 – Central 70 20 – Foster 448

22 13 – Wood 551 20 – Foster 70 13 – Wood 351

23 21 – Prairie 443 16 – Jefferson Park 61 21 – Prairie 321

24 19 – Belmont 317 19 – Belmont 53 19 – Belmont 229

25 23 – Town Hall 248 23 – Town Hall 26 23 – Town Hall 173

Source: Chicago Police Department’s Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 2011). This table does not include arrests for City of Chicago ordinance violations, which are factored into the total number of arrests per district reported by the CPD.

11


Rank Total Juvenile Arrests Felony Arrests Misdemeanor Arrests

2010 District No. District No. District No.

1 08 – Chicago Lawn 2,247 11 – Harrison 808 08 – Chicago Lawn 1,636

2 11 – Harrison 2,141 15 – Austin 494 04 – South Chicago 1,367

3 15 – Austin 1,975 08 – Chicago Lawn 418 06 – Gresham 1,177

4 04 – South Chicago 1,914 07 – Englewood 399 03 – Grand Crossing 1,140

5 06 – Gresham 1,674 10 – Ogden 389 15 – Austin 1,046

6 03 – Grand Crossing 1,660 04 – South Chicago 380 05 – Pullman 975

7 05 – Pullman 1,464 05 – Pullman 351 11 – Harrison 940

8 07 – Englewood 1,447 06 – Gresham 335 09 – Deering 931

9 25 – Grand Central 1,406 25 – Grand Central 326 25 – Grand Central 892

10 10 – Ogden 1,348 03 – Grand Crossing 316 07 – Englewood 862

11 09 – Deering 1,334 09 – Deering 250 22 – Morgan Park 811

12 22 – Morgan Park 1,129 22 – Morgan Park 215 10 – Ogden 754

13 17 – Albany Park 959 18 – Near North 210 17 – Albany Park 733

14 12 – Monroe 880 02 – Wentworth 184 12 – Monroe 673

15 18 – Near North 770 24 – Rogers Park 138 01 – Central 554

16 02 – Wentworth 731 17 – Albany Park 125 18 – Near North 509

17 24 – Rogers Park 708 12 – Monroe 120 24 – Rogers Park 497

18 01 – Central 685 14 – Shakespeare 115 20 – Foster 464

19 20 – Foster 590 21 – Prairie 101 02 – Wentworth 445

20 14 – Shakespeare 588 13 – Wood 78 16 – Jefferson Park 393

21 16 – Jefferson Park 494 01 – Central 76 14 – Shakespeare 373

22 21 – Prairie 472 20 – Foster 74 21 – Prairie 341

23 13 – Wood 417 19 – Belmont 66 13 – Wood 295

24 19 – Belmont 318 16 – Jefferson Park 60 19 – Belmont 236

25 23 – Town Hall 212 23 – Town Hall 40 23 – Town Hall 138

Source: Chicago Police Department’s Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 2011). This table does not include arrests for City of Chicago ordinance violations, which are factored into the total number of arrests per district reported by the CPD.

12


Highest Total Arrest Volume—Most Frequently Reported Offenses

Most juvenile arrests in Chicago are for misdemeanor offenses, generally, or felony drug pos-session.

Rank2009 Police District Most Frequently Reported Offenses Type of Offense Number

1 08 – Chicago Lawn 1. Disorderly Conduct2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Larceny – Theft

1. Misdemeanor2. Misdemeanor3. Misdemeanor

316300300

2 11 – Harrison 1. Drug Abuse Violations2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Larceny – Theft

1. Felony2. Misdemeanor3. Misdemeanor

546231222

3 06 – Gresham 1. Miscellaneous Non-Index Offenses2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Simple Battery


309307208

4 15 – Austin 1. Drug Abuse Violations2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Gambling


333284217

5 04 – South Chicago 1. Drug Abuse Violations2. Simple Battery3. Miscellaneous Non-Index Offenses


307287242

Source: CPD Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 11, 2011).

Rank2010 Police District Most Frequently Reported Offenses Type of Offense Number

1 08 – Chicago Lawn 1. Disorderly Conduct2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Simple Battery


366285229

2 11 – Harrison 1. Drug Abuse Violations2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Simple Battery


571217179

3 15 – Austin 1. Drug Abuse Violations2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Gambling

1. Misdemeanor2. Felony3. Misdemeanor

332316178

4 04 – South Chicago 1. Disorderly Conduct2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Simple Battery


287284250

5 06 – Gresham 1. Miscellaneous Non-Index Offenses2. Drug Abuse Violations3. Simple Battery


267209195

Source: CPD Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 11, 2011).

13


Highest Felony Arrest Volume—Most Frequently Reported Offenses

The following tables are adapted from the Chicago Police Department’s report of its total num-bers of juvenile felony arrests per district in 2009 and 2010.

As reported by CPD, the offenses described below lack some definition. For instance, the CPD data does not distinguish among the various possible types of drug charges. Most drug abuse violation (*) arrests reported were probably for possession of a controlled substance, such as heroin or cocaine, which results in a felony charge regardless of the amount of the drug the ar-restee allegedly possessed and/or whether he allegedly intended to sell it, use it privately, or do nothing with it.5

5 Illinois Controlled Substances Act, 720 ILCS 570/401 (2010)

14


Similarly, felony aggravated battery (**) describes a range of behavior. Simple battery, a mis-demeanor, is defined as physical contact of an insulting or harmful nature that one person in-tentionally causes to another.6 Some battery charges are aggravated and upgraded to felonies based on the legal status of the alleged victim. Illinois law gives special protection to police officers, teachers, and elderly people, among others, so a youth alleged to have any degree of physical contact with those types of people may be charged with a felony, even if the victim was not actually injured.7 Battery may also be charged as a felony only because it occurred on public property, even if no one was injured.8 On the other hand, battery may be charged as a felony because the alleged offender used a weapon or caused serious injury to the victim.9 The arrest data reported by CPD do not describe whether the alleged offenses were violent in nature or charged as felonies due to the location of the conduct or status of the victim.

Rank2009 Police District Community Areas

Most Frequently ReportedFelony Offenses Number

1 11 – Harrison Humboldt Park, Austin,East & West Garfield Park, N. Lawndale

1. Drug Abuse Violations*2. Robbery3. Aggravated Battery**

5468453

2 15 – Austin Austin 1. Drug Abuse Violations*2. Robbery3. Aggravated Battery**

3334033

3 07 – Englewood Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, W. Englewood

1. Burglary2. Robbery3. Motor Vehicle Theft

1198271

4 08 – Chicago Lawn Garfield Ridge, Gage Park, W. Elsdon, Archer Hts., W. Lawn, Chi. Lawn, Ashburn

1. Robbery2. Burglary3. Aggravated Battery**

12310255

5 06 – Gresham Auburn Gresham, Greater Grand Crossing, Chatham

1. Robbery2. Burglary3. Drug Abuse Violations*

1189353

Source: CPD Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 11, 2011); CPD Bureau of Administrative Services, Information Services Division GIS (May 2008).

6 Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, 720 ILCS 5/12-3(a) (2011)7 Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(d) (2011)8 Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(c) (2011)9 Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(a) (2011)

15


Rank2010 Police District Community Areas

Most Frequently ReportedFelony Offenses Number

1 11 – Harrison Humboldt Park, Austin,East & West Garfield Park, N. Lawndale

1. Drug Abuse Violations*2. Motor Vehicle Theft3. Robbery

5716358

2 15 – Austin Austin 1. Drug Abuse Violations*2. Robbery3. Aggravated Battery**

3165330

3 08 – Chicago Lawn Garfield Ridge, Gage Park, W. Elsdon, Archer Hts., W. Lawn, Chi. Lawn, Ashburn

1. Burglary2. Robbery3. Aggravated Battery**

978454

4 07 – Englewood Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, W. Englewood

1. Burglary2. Robbery3. Drug Abuse Violations*

967039

5 10 – Ogden North & South Lawndale, Lower West Side

1. Drug Abuse Violations*2. Robbery3. Motor Vehicle Theft

1657339

Source: CPD Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 11, 2011); CPD Bureau of Administrative Services, Information Services Division GIS (May 2008).

16


SECTION 5—Juvenile Arrests on School PropertyThere has been much discussion about the school to prison pipeline10 lately. One of the most important developments over the past few years has been the over-reliance on arrests as a way to address perceived school discipline problems.

School officials may usually decide whether or not to involve the police in a school incident. The Chicago Board of Education sets policies indicating when it is mandatory for school officials to notify police of alleged student misbehavior, when school officials may use their discretion in calling police, and when the police need not be involved.11 For example, when two people fight at school but no one is injured, the Student Code of Conduct does not require that police be no-tified. School officials may use their discretion in notifying police of a fight involving more than two people or resulting in injuries. School officials may also refrain from calling the police when a student makes any inappropriate minor physical contact with school personnel. Project NIA and FDLA encourage schools to handle conflict among students, teachers, and administrators without resorting to a police response as often as possible.

The numbers reported below underscore the reality that many young people in Chicago are ar-rested directly from their schools.

Arrests at Public School Locations—Persons 17 and Under (City of Chicago, 2009–2010)

2009 2010 % Change5,651 5,574 -1.3%

Source: CPD Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 11, 2011). Includes location codes that reflect public schools buildings and public school grounds.

10 The “School to Prison Pipeline” describes the reality that many young people are being pushed out of school and into the juvenile and adult legal systems because of harsh discipline policies, high stakes testing, police involve-ment in schools, and social oppression.

11 Chicago Public Schools Student Code of Conduct, pages 15–28 (effective September 16, 2010) – Available at: http://www.cps.edu/Pages/StudentResourcesStudentCodeofConduct.aspx

17


Arrests at Public School Locations by District—Persons 17 and Under (City of Chicago, 2009 & 2010)

District 2009 % Total 2009 2010 % Total 2010 TOTAL01 7 0.12 5 0.09 1202 155 2.74 178 3.19 33303 227 4.02 238 4.27 46504 530 9.38 543 9.74 1,07305 352 6.23 345 6.19 69706 375 6.64 379 6.8 75407 244 4.32 225 4.04 46908 482 8.53 532 9.54 1,01409 213 3.77 267 4.79 48010 100 1.77 133 2.39 23311 320 5.66 255 4.57 57512 369 6.53 308 5.53 67713 141 2.5 120 2.15 26114 55 0.97 73 1.31 12815 182 3.22 215 3.86 39716 254 4.49 160 2.87 41417 275 4.87 287 5.15 56218 71 1.26 71 1.27 14219 95 1.68 80 1.44 17520 233 4.12 236 4.23 46921 114 2.02 161 2.89 27522 447 7.91 370 6.64 81723 28 0.5 11 0.2 3924 93 1.65 71 1.27 16425 289 5.11 311 5.58 600

TOTAL 5,651 100.01 5,574 100 11,225

18


19


SECTION 6—Formal/Informal Station AdjustmentsAs an alternative to referring the case to Juvenile Court, a youth officer may release a young person from custody with a station adjustment. There are two types of station adjustments: in-formal and formal. A youth officer may give an informal station adjustment if he decides there is probable cause to believe the juvenile committed an offense. A formal station adjustment is different in that a juvenile must also admit involvement in the alleged offense. The juvenile’s admission can later be used as evidence against him if he violates the terms of the formal adjust-ment and his case is referred to court.

Although they are not convictions, station adjustments usually appear in a juvenile’s arrest history. All formal station adjustments must be recorded with the Illinois State Police. Infor-mal station adjustments for felonies must also be recorded with the Illinois State Police, and informal station adjustments for misdemeanors may be recorded. Station adjustments can be expunged from a juvenile’s record.

There were 1,733 formal and 7,040 informal station adjustments reported by CPD in 2010.

20


Station Adjustments (City of Chicago, 2009 & 2010)

2009 2010

DISTRICTFormal

AdjustmentsInformal

AdjustmentsFormal

AdjustmentsInformal

Adjustments TOTAL01 33 188 42 356 61902 3 146 17 146 31203 49 333 26 222 63004 43 396 45 392 87605 29 376 36 308 74906 21 384 38 300 74307 5 238 28 316 58708 44 607 85 691 1,42709 33 336 45 402 81610 17 236 26 357 63611 113 467 133 476 1,18912 121 209 205 281 81613 46 119 56 159 38014 62 123 65 153 40315 127 361 185 611 1,28416 122 127 101 156 50617 136 197 187 304 82418 30 137 62 230 45919 18 76 18 95 20720 40 120 31 157 34821 3 97 5 155 26022 33 353 21 197 60423 13 51 9 60 13324 19 97 21 171 30825 221 316 246 345 1,128TOTAL 1,381 6,090 1,733 7,040 16,244Source: Youth Investigation Section, Detective Division, provided to CPD Research & Development on 8 March 2011.

21


SECTION 7—Implications of the DataThe data presented in this report show that certain community areas in Chicago are dispropor-tionately impacted by juvenile arrests. The maps included in the report visually illustrate that juveniles on the South and West sides of Chicago are more likely to find themselves in police custody.

We know that contact with law enforcement has a negative impact on young people. Young people who are arrested may at least temporarily miss school, work, or youth development programming while they are held in police custody. Their school and positive extracurricular schedules are further disrupted on each day they are required to appear in court or held in detention, as are their parents’ work and child care responsibilities. Youth in trouble with the law consistently struggle in school, have higher levels of mental and emotional trauma, and are likely to recidivate.

Community members must find new and creative ways to reach young people before they are arrested or come to the attention of law enforcement. We encourage our readers to take personal responsibility for supporting young people who may be in trouble. Please share your ideas with us so that we may pass them along. Visit the Arresting Justice report blog (http://arrestjustice.wordpress.com) where youth and adults will be able to participate in an anony-mous survey about encounters with the police. In addition, Caitlin Patterson of FDLA can be reached at [email protected] and Mariame Kaba of Project NIA can be reached at [email protected] for questions about the report.

The event of an arrest is truly life-altering for anyone taken into police custody and their fami-lies. We must work to prevent youth involvement with police and criminal/delinquency court systems. Despite sensational media reports, however, youth are the minority of people who get arrested. The Chicago Police Department made 181,669 arrests in 2009 – approximately 17% were of people seventeen and younger (31,224).12 This statistic should shatter the prevalent characterization of youth as “flash mobs” or as automatically “suspect.” In forming opinions about Chicago’s young people, we should never forget that adults are the ones primarily impli-cated in the criminal legal system.

12 Chicago Police Department 2009 Annual Report; CPD Research and Development Division, Research and Analysis Section (March 11, 2011).

22


APPENDIXSECTION 1—OPTIONS POLICE HAVE IN THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH YOUTH

There are many ways that the police can interact with youth in Chicago.

1. Decision to Conduct Investigatory Stop

In public places, where most arrests happen, police officers may stop any person whom the officers reasonably suspect might be committing a crime for temporary investigation. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The officers must base their suspicion not just on a hunch, but on spe-cific facts they can explain to a judge. They may take into account such factors as what they ob-served the person doing; whether the neighborhood is a “high-crime area,” where there is a lot of drug-dealing or violence; and whether the person ran away or otherwise attempted to evade the police. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). For their safety during the stop, officers may pat down the outer clothing of a detainee for weapons. If the officers feel what immediately appears to be a weapon or drugs, they may remove that object from the detainee’s clothing and arrest the detainee if the object was, in fact, illegal to possess.

During a stop, police may ask the detainee to identify himself, and he must truthfully provide his name, birthdate, address, and phone number. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 218 (2004). A person may be arrested simply for providing false identification to police officers. Obstructing identification, 720 ILCS 31-4.5 (2010). During a stop, the detainee does not have to answer any other police questions, such as what he was doing, where he was going, or what he knows about any other person or incident. The detainee can use his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article One, Section Ten, of the Illinois Constitution.

Officers may ask any person to voluntarily stop and talk with them during a consensual encoun-ter. If the person is not sure whether he must stop, he may ask the officers if he is free to leave. A person who is free to leave may do so. In Chicago, police officers frequently fill out and save a contact card with information provided by the person. If a person is not free to leave police custody, he has been arrested. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).

2. Discretion to Arrest

Police officers may arrest a juvenile when they have probable cause – a reason, based on specific facts known to the officers, to believe that the juvenile committed a crime or violated a court order of supervision or probation. Arrest and taking into custody of a minor, 705 ICLS 405/5-401(1)(a), (c) (1999). Note that the officers’ decision to arrest is discretionary. They have the power to decide whether or not to arrest a juvenile whom they believe committed a crime.

In public places, including schools, police do not need a warrant to arrest a juvenile on the basis of probable cause. If, however, officers wish to remove a juvenile from his home, they should get an arrest warrant. All people have the right against unreasonable searches of their homes

23


and unreasonable seizures of their persons and property under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article One, Section Six, of the Illinois Constitution. A child or his family may refuse to allow officers into the house to arrest a person when the officers do not have a warrant. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). A juvenile is not required to volun-tarily leave his home and accompany officers to the police station for questioning.

Illinois law never gives people the right to resist arrest. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer, 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (2009). Therefore, a juvenile who believes that his arrest was illegal should not resist or otherwise fight back against the officers. If he is charged with a crime, the fact of the unlawful arrest may be used to fight his case in court.

Any police officer who arrests a juvenile for a misdemeanor offense may confirm the juvenile’s identity and release him to his guardian. Duty of officer; admissions by minor, 705 ILCS 405/4-405(2) (1999). Otherwise, a youth officer must promptly be assigned to the case. The youth officer may release the juvenile with a station adjustment, refer the case to Juvenile Court and release the juvenile to his guardian, or keep the juvenile in custody under specific conditions and time limitations. 705 ILCS 405/5-405(3).

3. Release with Station Adjustment

Instead of referring a juvenile arrestee to court, a youth officer has the option to release the juvenile from police custody with a station adjustment. Station adjustments are available for any type of offense – city ordinance violations, misdemeanors, or felonies. In deciding whether to offer a station adjustment, the youth officer must consider the juvenile’s age and history of delinquency, the seriousness of the alleged offense, the juvenile’s alleged culpability (level of involvement), whether the alleged offense was aggressive or premeditated, and whether the juvenile used or possessed a deadly weapon. Station adjustments, 705 ILCS 405/5-301 (1999). A station adjustment is not a finding of delinquency or a criminal conviction. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(1)(g), (2)(e).

A youth officer may impose conditions on the juvenile as part of a station adjustment. For ex-ample, the youth officer may set a curfew, order the juvenile to refrain from contacting certain people or entering certain places, and require the juvenile to attend school, perform community service, participate in community mediation or peer jury, or pay restitution. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(1)(e), (2)(d)(iii). If the juvenile violates the conditions of a station adjustment, the youth officer may extend the adjustment, terminate it unsatisfactorily, or refer the case to the State’s Attorney or Juvenile Court. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(1)(f), (2)(i).

There are two types of station adjustments: informal and formal. A youth officer may give an in-formal station adjustment if he decides there is probable cause to believe the juvenile committed an offense. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(1)(a). A formal station adjustment is different in that a juvenile must admit involvement in the alleged offense. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(2)(a). The juvenile’s admis-sion can later be used as evidence against him if he violates the terms of the formal adjustment and his case is referred to court. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(2)(c)(iv).

24


Although they are not convictions, station adjustments usually appear in a juvenile’s arrest his-tory. All formal station adjustments must be recorded with the Illinois State Police. Informal station adjustments for felonies must also be recorded with the Illinois State Police, and infor-mal station adjustments for misdemeanors may be recorded. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(1)(g), (2)(e). Station adjustments can be expunged from a juvenile’s record. 705 ILCS 405/5-915.

The number of station adjustments a juvenile may receive is limited by Illinois law. A juvenile cannot receive more than five informal and four formal station adjustments while he is a minor, with additional limitations by type of offense. 705 ILCS 405/5-301(1)(b)-(d), (2)(j)-(l).

4. Investigation; Referral for Prosecution

A youth officer may hold a juvenile arrestee in custody when he reasonably believes there is urgent and immediate necessity to do so, given the nature of the allegations and factors such as the juvenile’s family, educational, and social circumstances. Duty of officer, 705 ILCS 405/5-405(3)(c). There are strict limitations on the amount of time that a juvenile arrestee may be held in police custody for investigation. A child younger than twelve years old cannot be held for more than six hours. Non-secure custody or detention, 705 ILCS 405/5-410(2)(a) (2004). A juvenile who is twelve years or older may be held no longer than twelve hours for a non-vio-lent crime and no longer than twenty-four hours for a violent crime. 705 ILCS 405/5-410(2)(c). All arrestees under seventeen years old must be separated from adult detainees by “sight and sound.” 705 ILCS 450/5-410(2)(c)(ii), (v); Excluded jurisdiction, 705 ILCS 450/5-130(7) (2006).

Whether a child will be charged as a juvenile or as an adult depends on the child’s age and the nature of the offense. When a child is charged as a juvenile, the youth officer may refer the child’s case to Juvenile Court and either release the child to his guardian or seek to hold the child in detention until his initial court appearance (see below). 705 ILCS 405/5-405(3). Police may not disclose the identity of a child charged as a juvenile to the general public. Processing of juveniles and minors under Department control, General Order 98-11, Section VI-A.

All seventeen year olds charged with felonies will be prosecuted in adult Criminal Court, while misdemeanor cases are referred to Juvenile Court until the arrestee is eighteen. Exclusive juris-diction, 705 ILCS 405/5-120 (2010). For certain offenses, a child who is fifteen years or older will automatically be processed and charged as an adult; police cannot refer the case to Juvenile Court. Those offenses include first degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault (rape), aggravated battery with a firearm (shooting), armed robbery with a firearm, aggravated vehicu-lar hijacking (carjacking) with a firearm, and unlawful use of a weapon on school grounds. 705 ILCS 450/5-130(1)(a), (3)(a). Sometimes, a child as young as thirteen can be charged as an adult. In automatic transfer cases, members of the Chicago Police Department investigate the offenses alleged, and the Felony Review Division of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office determines whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the child.

25


The protections that Illinois law provides for juvenile arrestees do not apply to children charged as adults, except for the requirement that children be held separately from adults. 705 ILCS 450/5-130(7). For example, police may disclose the identity of a sixteen year old accused of shooting another person.

Every person, regardless of his age, has the rights to remain silent and to defense counsel when he is arrested. United States Const., Amend. 5; Illinois Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10. Other than pro-viding identity information, juveniles can refuse to answer police questions. They can also re-fuse to participate in an interrogation without an attorney present. Juveniles may exercise their rights by clearly saying, “I will not talk. I need my lawyer,” and then remaining silent.

When police officers arrest a juvenile with or without a warrant, they must immediately attempt to notify the juvenile’s guardian that he has been arrested and where he is being held. Duty of officer; admissions by minor, 705 ILCS 405/5-405(1), (2) (1999). However, a juvenile may be held in custody and investigated whether or not officers successfully reach the guardian and whether or not the guardian is present during questioning or other procedures. A parent or guardian may not be allowed to see a juvenile held in police custody; such visitors may be admitted or denied access to the juvenile arrestee at the district supervisor’s discretion.

According to Chicago Police Department policy, a juvenile should not be questioned, and a formal statement should not be taken, unless a guardian or youth officer is present. Processing of juveniles and minors under Department control, General Order 98-11, Section IV-E (revised 2000), Processing juvenile arrestees charged as adults, General Order 98-11-03B, Section IV-A-2 (2004). The youth officer is not an advocate for the juvenile’s defense during questioning or at any time. Any statements the juvenile makes to the youth officer may be used against him in court. Furthermore, conversations between a juvenile and his guardian are not privileged. Police may listen to the conversations, and the State’s Attorney could subpoena the guardian to appear in court and testify truthfully to the juvenile’s statements.

Police cannot deny access to a defense attorney. A juvenile (or person of any age) must be al-lowed to consult with an attorney who appears at the station on the arrestee’s behalf. Right to consult with attorney, 725 ILCS 5/103-4 (1963); Arrestees’ communications, Chicago Police Depart-ment General Order 02-03-08, Section III-B-1 (2002). Regardless of the charges, any friend or family member may send an attorney to the police station to represent a juvenile. It is not neces-sary that the juvenile himself call for the attorney when he might not have access to a telephone. An attorney from First Defense Legal Aid is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for juveniles or adults who are under arrest at Chicago Police stations. Friends and family should call the FDLA Hotline immediately on behalf of someone arrested by Chicago Police: 1-800-LAW-REP-4 / 1-800-529-7374.

Although police cannot prevent an attorney from seeing his client once at the station, officers and detectives are not required to call an attorney for the juvenile. There are two very limited exceptions: Police cannot interrogate a juvenile who is twelve years old or younger without a

26


defense attorney present when the charges being investigated are criminal sexual assault (rape) or homicide (murder). Representation by counsel, 705 ILCS 405/5-170 (2005). As in adult cases, only homicide interrogations must be electronically recorded. When statements by accused may be used, 725 ILCS 5/103-2.1 (2005).

5. Release From Station Without Charges

Whenever police officers, detectives, or agents of the State’s Attorney’s Office determine that there is not enough evidence to prosecute a juvenile arrestee, they should release him with no charges. The arrest will still appear on the juvenile’s record, and he should apply to have it ex-punged. Expungement of juvenile law enforcement and court records, 705 ILCS 405/5-915.

6. Request Detention of Juvenile

When a youth officer refers a case to Juvenile Court, he may release the juvenile to his guardian with a promise to appear in court on a specified date. If the youth officer believes that there is “urgent and immediate necessity” to keep the juvenile in custody until the initial court appear-ance, he may request that the juvenile be held in secure custody at the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center or in non-secure custody at a youth shelter. 705 ILCS 405/5-401(b).

In Cook County, the Juvenile Probation Department screens each request for detention us-ing a standardized points system called the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI). Points are assigned according to the seriousness of the present offense, whether the juvenile has pend-ing cases or past findings of delinquency, and whether the juvenile is currently subject to a detention alternative restriction such as home confinement. If the factors add up to fifteen or more points, Probation authorizes secure detention of a child who is thirteen years or older. In cases of ten to fourteen points, or when the child is younger than thirteen, Probation ex-plores non-secure detention options. If the factors add up to fewer than ten points, the juve-nile should be released.

All juveniles charged as adults in automatic transfer cases are held in detention. They appear in Criminal Court for probable cause and bond hearings in accordance with provisions of the Il-linois Code of Criminal Procedure. Children referred to Juvenile Court for violent felonies and weapons cases, such as murder, shooting, rape, home invasion, and armed robbery will also be held in detention until their initial court date (automatic fifteen points on RAI).

If the child is kept in custody when his case is referred to Juvenile Court, the judge must hold a detention hearing within forty hours. Setting of detention or shelter care hearing; release, 705 ILCS 405/5-415(1) (2009). The judge then determines whether the child should be released with or without restrictions while his case is pending. The judge may order continued deten-tion if he makes certain findings: (a) there is probable cause that the juvenile committed an offense, and (b) there is “urgent and immediate necessity” to detain the child for his own protection or the protection of another person or property, or (c) the child is a flight risk. 705 ILCS 405/5-415(4).

27


REF

ERR

AL

TO C

OU

RT

PO

LIC

E A

CTI

ON

NO

CO

UR

T R

EFER

RA

L

Initi

al P

olic

e C

onta

ct

Inve

stig

ator

y St

op

Arr

est

Con

sens

ual E

ncou

nter

Polic

e C

usto

dy &

Inve

stig

atio

n(1

2-24

hou

r lim

it)

Rel

ease

– N

o A

rres

t

No

Ref

erra

l for

Pro

secu

tion

Rel

ease

With

out C

harg

es

Rel

ease

With

Sta

tion

Adj

ustm

ent

Info

rmal

May

incl

ude

cond

ition

s N

o ad

mis

sion

of g

uilt

Form

al May

incl

ude

cond

ition

s M

ust a

dmit

invo

lvem

ent

Ref

erra

l for

Pro

secu

tion

Stat

e’s A

ttor

ney

Cha

rges

Ju

veni

le a

s Adu

lt(a

utom

atic

tran

sfer

cas

es)

You

th O

ffic

er R

efer

s to

Juve

nile

Cou

rt

Felo

nies

(16

& y

oung

er)

Mis

dem

eano

rs(1

7 &

you

nger

)

Rel

ease

d W

ith C

ourt

Dat

eH

eld

in D

eten

tion

or S

helte

r Pr

obat

ion

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t40

-hou

r Det

entio

n H

earin

g

Hel

d in

Det

entio

n Pr

obab

le C

ause

&

Bon

d H

earin

g in

C

rimin

al C

ourt

28


SECTION 2—JUVENILES’ RIGHTS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

Here are the five things that we need to remember to minimize the impact of a police encounter.

1. Identity Information. If we are stopped or arrested by police, we must give them our identity information: name, birthdate, address, and phone number. Other than that, we do not have to answer any other police questions.

2. We have the right to remain silent. That means we do not have to give police any information about the case, and we do not have to answer any police questions without a lawyer there to defend us. To use our right to remain silent, we must clearly say “I will not talk. I want my lawyer.” Then, we shouldn’t say anything else and we shouldn’t ask any questions about the case. When we use our right to remain silent, the police cannot interrogate us.

3. We have the right to a lawyer. A defense lawyer can help us protect our right to remain silent. You can get a free lawyer for someone who is being held at a Chicago Police station twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, by calling First Defense Legal Aid: 1-800-LAW-REP-4 / 1-800-529-7374. Anyone can call the Hotline on behalf of someone arrested by Chicago Police.

4. Never run away from police. Running makes us look more suspicious, and police might arrest us for resisting arrest even if we didn’t do anything else wrong. Also, police might use more force when they chase us and arrest us – we could get seriously hurt.

5. Never fight back against police. We never have the right to resist arrest, even when we believe it’s wrong. We can fight the case in court, not on the street. If we fight back against police, they might arrest us for aggravated battery, a felony case, even if we didn’t do anything else wrong. Also, police will use more force against us, and we could get seriously hurt.

29


SECTION 3—MAP OF DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY AREAS

Arresting Justice: Juvenile Arrests in Chicago

Documents

Transcript of Arresting Justice: Juvenile Arrests in Chicago