puma guy wrote:You could be charged with "vaguery"rotor wrote:Now we can be stopped and forced to give a "satisfactory" reason for lawful presence. Satisfactory to whom?
Or public ambiguity!!
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?”
- Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:39 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?
- Replies: 42
- Views: 8475
Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?
Or public ambiguity!!
- Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:36 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?
- Replies: 42
- Views: 8475
Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?
Yeah I realized it was not a very old ordinance, and was probably written in response to groups of people loitering/living in vacant buildings, during the recession, in the mid 80s. This was soon after the SCOTUS decision, that prohibited, the mentally ill, from being held in psych wards, against their will, which meant that the homeless rate skyrocketed. Unfortunately, whoever drafted this law, did a very poor job, of articulating, a specific charge, a definition, of a satisfactory reason, or understanding, the potential, Unconstitutionality, of such an ordinance.mojo84 wrote:That ordinance was put on the books in 1985, not 1885. It's not like it was some old ordinance from the horse drawn carriage era. I do not know if it has been enforced or not lately.Jusme wrote:mojo84 wrote:Sec. 24-211. - Being in or about a public or private building in the nighttime.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to be in or about public or private building or premises in the nighttime without permission and without being able to give a satisfactory reason for his presence.
(Code 1985, § 27.200)
Sounds like a law written to allow police to stop anyone between sunset, and sunrise, without probable cause. The ambiguity, regarding either, public, or private, buildings, and just being in or "about" a building, without providing a distance, could mean someone walking down the street, within 500' of a building, would have to provide a "satisfactory" reason for being there.
So to answer the OP question, yes, I do have a problem with this ordinance.
Now, the issue, in my opinion, is, just because,this poorly written, ordinance is on the books, doesn't mean, it is being enforced, or that there is a legitimate charge, that could be filed on someone, who is determined to be in violation.
I know that several city and county ordinances, are still, in effect, that sound rediculous today, that are no longer enforced, but have not been challenged, to force their repeal.
In Cleburne, for example, if you plan to enter the city, in an automobile, you must telegraph, or telephone ahead, so that the horses can be secured, to prevent them from spooking, and running off. I don't think it has been enforced lately.
- Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:08 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?
- Replies: 42
- Views: 8475
Re: Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?
mojo84 wrote:Sec. 24-211. - Being in or about a public or private building in the nighttime.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to be in or about public or private building or premises in the nighttime without permission and without being able to give a satisfactory reason for his presence.
(Code 1985, § 27.200)
Sounds like a law written to allow police to stop anyone between sunset, and sunrise, without probable cause. The ambiguity, regarding either, public, or private, buildings, and just being in or "about" a building, without providing a distance, could mean someone walking down the street, within 500' of a building, would have to provide a "satisfactory" reason for being there.
So to answer the OP question, yes, I do have a problem with this ordinance.
Now, the issue, in my opinion, is, just because,this poorly written, ordinance is on the books, doesn't mean, it is being enforced, or that there is a legitimate charge, that could be filed on someone, who is determined to be in violation.
I know that several city and county ordinances, are still, in effect, that sound rediculous today, that are no longer enforced, but have not been challenged, to force their repeal.
In Cleburne, for example, if you plan to enter the city, in an automobile, you must telegraph, or telephone ahead, so that the horses can be secured, to prevent them from spooking, and running off. I don't think it has been enforced lately.