The image was fascinating, as justice John Paul Stevens, a Chicago native, presented it. A gang member and his father arehanging in near Wrigley Field. Are they there " to rob an 1unsuspecting fan or just to get a glimpse of Sammy Sosa leaving the ball park?" A police officer has no idea, but under Chicago's anti-gang law, the cop must order them disperse. With Stevens writing 2for a 6-to-3 majority, the Supreme Court last week struck downChicago's sweeping law, as had sparked 42,000 arrests in its three 3years of enforcement. The decision was a blow to advocates of get-tough crimepolicies. And in a widely noted concurring opinion, Justice Sandra 4Day O'Connor suggested that a less harsh approach—distinguishinggang members and innocent bystanders—might pass constitutional 5muster. New language could target loiterers " with no apparentpurpose rather than to establish control over identifiable areas, to 6intimidate others from entering those areas or to conceal legal 7activities," she wrote. Chicago officials vowed to draft a new measure. "We will go back and correct it and then move forward," said Mayor Richard Daley. Chicago officials, along with the League of Cities and 31 statesthat sided with them in the court, might do well to look at one state 8where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges; California. The state has two antiloitering laws on thebooks, aiming at people intending to commit specific crimes— 9prostitution and drug dealing. In addition, a number of localprosecutors are waging war for gangs by an innovative use of the 10public-nuisance laws.