The 6th anniversary of the notorious incorrect police incursion into Anjanette Young’s residence on Friday coincides with yet another year without the passing, or even proposal, of her eponymous ordinance that aims for a revisit of police search warrant procedures. ‘My anticipation is that we will not traverse another year without setting a tangible policy,’ Young projected positively as the anniversarial day was nearing. Nevertheless, the City Council session on Wednesday passed with no discussion of the Anjanette Young Ordinance. This Friday, Young anticipates joining her consistent supporter from the city council in reaffirming their determination to ‘advocate rational reforms’ to police search warrant rules, a press notification states.
Alas, it’s deemed ‘improbable’ that these reforms will encompass forbidding no-knock warrants. Young is miffed with the mayor’s office regarding the deferment and lack of ‘complete consensus on some phrases.’ ‘It’s disheartening to realise that Young and I, and campaigners have been putting in effort, and our requirements and expectations haven’t altered,’ she articulated. Later, she conceded that a pivotal shift on her and Young’s side has been readiness to endorse an ordinance sans a ban on no-knock.
The question of responsibility for yet another turning point passing without an ordinance registered remains contentious between the mayor’s office and herself, a revolutionary council member growing progressively critical of the Johnson administration. Mayor Brandon Johnson, soon marking his two-year tenure in office, ran his campaign with the pledge of passing the Anjanette Young Ordinance, which initially included a prohibition on the contentious no-knock search warrants.
She maintains that she and Young began pressuring the mayor in ‘the autumn, early part of 2023.’ ‘We earnestly commenced our push, striving to ready legislation for introduction by February 2024, and failed. They were unable to accomplish it.’ However, an email discovered from a key aid to two city council allies discussing the progress of the proposal seems to negate any implications that Mayor Johnson is culpable for the delay. The email included two preliminary proposals written under the guidance of Young and herself, and confirmed that the mayor’s office is prepared to endorse.
She didn’t divulge which segment of the draft ordinances is causing disagreement. However, worth noting perhaps, is that neither of the drafts procured contained a wholesome ban on no-knock warrants. Evidence suggests that one draft may impose at least one limitation on the application of no-knock warrants.
Last month during an interview, when asked why an all-encompassing ban was removed, she implicated the mayor’s office, saying ‘I’ll leave that to the administration’ to explain. Musing on it later on Thursday, she elaborated that it’s partially due to her and Young not wishing to put forward a proposal that will be opposed by the Chicago Police Department.
We’re actually collaborating with the departments that are going to be impacted by this. To put it precisely, we are combining forces with the police department. We’re not just asserting something. If they’re informing us that this goes beyond a reasonable limit that definitely becomes part of the legislative progression, right?’
The proposals would further mandate that the department submits ‘statistical overviews’ on a monthly basis, detailing the figures on requested and approved residential search warrants, and in-depth outcomes including formed evidence during the incursion and any corresponding arrests. It would also obligate the superintendent of the department to testify to the council about this data every quarter.
As Young pointed out in late January, ‘At present, all actions are taking place out of public scrutiny, and without actual data, holding them accountable for their conduct becomes unfeasible.’ The second version would bar no-knock warrants under a precise circumstance: ‘when the sole alleged offence is possessing a controlled substance, unless there’s a probable cause presenting that the substance is intended for further than personal use.’
Yet, even to some of the more moderate and conservative council members, the lack of a containment in the Young ordinance drafts has sparked confusion. They voiced their readiness to support it. ‘The matter of a no-knock warrant ban must be dealt with,’ insists one Alderman.
There have been instances — within Illinois as well as on a broader scale — that suggest that no-knock warrants do not end favorably, and ultimately, it’s going to levy a high cost on taxpayers. Curiously, another Alderman found himself in accord with council progressives on the initial Anjanette Young Ordinance and proposed that any new idea should ‘amend the course we implement no-knock warrants.’ At the time of their statements, neither held drafts of the ordinance.
She underlines her direct collaboration with the department that the ordinance aims to reshape. ‘While it’s gratifying to know that we have fellow members who’d back it, it’s not guaranteed that the department will endorse,’ she stated.