LEFT FIELD MEDIA STRIKES OUT AGAINST THE ADJACENT SIDEWALKS ORDINANCE

Shapiro Associates • Feb 17, 2017

    During the Cubs’ home opener in 2015, Chicago police patrol officer Elias Voulgaris […] The post LEFT FIELD MEDIA STRIKES OUT AGAINST THE ADJACENT SIDEWALKS ORDINANCE appeared first on Shapiro & Associates.

 

Photo is courtesy of Google Map

 

During the Cubs’ home opener in 2015, Chicago police patrol officer Elias Voulgaris observed Matthew Smerge, the editor of Left Field Media, LLC selling his magazine at the corner of Clark and Addison streets – the main entrance to Wrigley Field. For anyone that is not familiar with this intersection, during any home game, you will find a narrow gridlock of cubs’ fans making their way to and from the stadium. If you live in or near Wrigleyville, on game days, you know to avoid this intersection while driving at all costs since many fans are forced into these streets creating a traffic jam on Clark St.

Left Field Media, LLC publishes Chicago Baseball, a magazine that produces four issues over the course of a baseball season. Copies are sold for $2 outside Wrigley Field before the Chicago Cubs’ home games by Left Field’s vendors

On that day in 2015, Officer Voulgaris told Smerge to move across the street in order to comply with Chicago Municipal Code 4-244-140(b), which is commonly referred to as the “Adjacent-Sidewalks Ordinance” Section 4-244-140(b) forbids all peddling on the sidewalks directly adjacent to Wrigley Field. Smerge refused to move and was ticketed – strike one.

As a result, Left Field sued the City, seeking a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. §1983, contending that the Adjacent-Sidewalks Ordinance violates the First Amendment. Unfortunately for Left Field, the district court denied its motion, just in time for the playoffs – strike two. The district court ultimately found that the Ordinance was justified because the streets adjacent to Wrigley Field are extremely narrow and during home games fans often walk in the streets creating unsafe conditions.

Subsequently, Left Field appealed to the 7th Circuit of Appeals. SeeLeft Field, LLC v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. May 23, 2016).

Contrary to the arguments in Left Field’s motion, the 7th Circuit first concluded that the Adjacent-Sidewalks Ordinance did not regulate speech, rather it regulated peddling. Upon further review of the Ordinance, the 7th Circuit determined that it was “content-neutral,” or nondiscriminatory, as the Ordinance regulates peddling without regard to what the peddler is selling.

Under a “content-neutral” approach, the City must show a “rational basis” for the Ordinance. In other words, the Court will uphold the Ordinance if it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose of the City. The Court held that the reasoning behind the Ordinance was to curtail peddler activity that delays entry in Wrigley Field and induces crowds from spilling into the streets. Thus, the City’s Ordinance passed the rational basis test. Therefore, the 7th Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Left Field’s injunction request – strike three.

 

December 27, 2016

 

By: Justin A Silva
Attorney at Shapiro & Associates Law

View the article in your browser. Click here.

*Photo courtesy of Google Map

 

 

By Dan Shapiro 04 Sep, 2024
69 Acre Land Acquisition
By Dan Shapiro 20 Jun, 2024
Introduction Last summer, an attorney filed a legal brief he had written with the help of the generative AI platform, ChatGPT. The document included citations to a series of legal cases that seemingly offered precedents that supported his client’s position. There was only one problem. As the judge in the case discovered, six of those cases did not exist. Instead, they were dreamed up by the online tool. This was only one of several high-profile incidents in which new technology has sometimes embarrassed the lawyers using it. Yet many legal experts believe generative AI will also change the legal profession in ways that will aid lawyers and their clients. Lawyers must be accountable for how they use AI. Not only must they carefully assess any bias inherent in algorithms before using it, but they must also consider ethical and fairness issues. AI holds tremendous promise to free legal professionals from the most time-consuming tasks, work more efficiently than ever, and empower them to focus on strategic projects that truly matter. Still, there are many ethical considerations of AI to keep in mind. Ethical Issues Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be formal ethical opinions addressing the use of AI. Be sure to confirm the existence of these ethics’ opinions or guidelines and how they apply to the use of AI. Bias And Fairness AI uses trained algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data. These algorithms can collect biased historical information, which means that the AI system may also inadvertently produce biased results, leading to questionable outcomes. Algorithms can be difficult to interpret, and it can be challenging to understand how they arrive at their decisions or source information. Privacy AI systems often rely on sizable amounts of data, including highly sensitive and confidential information, and may store personal and conversation data. When using the technology, lawyers need to ensure that AI systems adhere to strict data privacy regulations. For example, lawyers using ChatGPT must familiarize themselves with its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use before using the service. Additionally, they must make sure that the data is only used for the specific purposes for which it was collected. Lawyers must also consider professional obligations relating to privacy and information-sharing when providing any information with AI systems to ensure they are not running afoul of confidentiality obligations (to clients or other parties) or otherwise disclosing information improperly. Responsibility And Accountability As a rule of thumb, AI should be used as a complement to work, and not a replacement. While AI can streamline time-consuming and mundane tasks, strategic decision-making, complex legal analysis, and legal counsel are all examples of responsibilities that it simply cannot take over. As a result, lawyers must be proactive in establishing clear lines of responsibility and accountability when implementing AI in their firm. Summary As the use of AI in law firms becomes increasingly widespread, it is important that legal professionals address the ethical considerations surrounding it and ensure the technology is being used responsibly. By doing so, lawyers will be able to enjoy AI’s benefits while maintaining an ethical practice at the same time. In the end, AI has its benefits but it should not be relied upon to accurately apply the law to a fact pattern in the context of giving sound legal advice. Accurate legal advice includes understanding the context in which the law exists, experience and human thoughtfulness.
By Dan Shapiro 30 May, 2024
Public Hearings: Keys to Successful Presentations
By Dan Shapiro 18 Apr, 2024
HB 3306, HB 2099 and The Corporate Transparency Act
By Dan Shapiro 21 Mar, 2024
Client Success
By Dan Shapiro 11 Jan, 2024
A Glimpse into the 2024 Commercial Real Estate
By Dan Shapiro 09 Nov, 2023
Planning for your Property's Financial Future, by Jamie Baer
By Dan Shapiro 17 Aug, 2023
Commercial Real Estate Conversion Options
By Dan Shapiro 28 Mar, 2023
Tax Increment Financing Updates
Show More
Share by: