Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

[mojo84]

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)

[TexasJohnBoy]

As long as "cuz" is a good reason.

[Colonel Angus]

Aren't they trespassing if they don't have effective consent to be inside the building, no matter what time of day?

[strogg]

"I needed a break from feeling cooped up inside my home, so I'm here." Or if I'm inside my home, "I live here." Satisfactory enough?

[Abraham]

I have mixed thinking on this one.

First, if cops are having young toughs causing trouble, this ordinance could be quite helpful in disbursing them..i.e., move along punk.

At the same time, this ordinance sounds more than a little vague...

[rotor]

Now we can be stopped and forced to give a "satisfactory" reason for lawful presence. Satisfactory to whom?

[Pawpaw]

"Everybody has to be somewhere."

[Jusme]

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.

[Grundy1133]

"why are you here" because my mom and dad.... well, nvm...

[mojo84]

Aren't they trespassing if they don't have effective consent to be inside the building, no matter what time of day?

Is the ordinance written in way way to address only being inside a building at night?

[twomillenium]

If it a public building not private, then I as a taxpaying owner gave myself permission. In a building that has been locked is already burglary, if it is open you do not need a reason if it is open to the public no matter the time of day. A vague law like this makes it tough on LEOs (not all) that are seemingly have problems understanding the laws in black and white.

[mojo84]

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.

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.

[mojo84]

If it a public building not private, then I as a taxpaying owner gave myself permission. In a building that has been locked is already burglary, if it is open you do not need a reason if it is open to the public no matter the time of day. A vague law like this makes it tough on LEOs (not all) that are seemingly have problems understanding the laws in black and white.

What about being outside of a building?

[Abraham]

On 'PD Live' I see people being asked for I.D. by LEO's when all they're doing is hanging around the local 7-11.

I see both sides of this sort of thing.

The store mgr. is concerned if a small crowd of young males are hanging around his store, potential customers won't stop in...at the same time the young guys may be harmless.

My take...move along young guys unless you've got business to do in the store.

[Grundy1133]

If it a public building not private, then I as a taxpaying owner gave myself permission. In a building that has been locked is already burglary, if it is open you do not need a reason if it is open to the public no matter the time of day. A vague law like this makes it tough on LEOs (not all) that are seemingly have problems understanding the laws in black and white.

What about being outside of a building?

LEO:"What are you doin in this parking lot"
ME:"Well, the wal mart bags would indicate that I just purchased goods and/or services from this local retailer, and I am heading to my vehicular transport so that I may proceed to my legal residence."
LEO:"....... stupid ordinance.... move along"