Anyone have an issue with this city ordinance?

[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.

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.

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.

[puma guy]

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

You could be charged with "vaguery"

[Jusme]

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

You could be charged with "vaguery"

Or public ambiguity!!

[Keith B]

Ordinance states 'in or about public or private building or premises'

What definition are they using for 'premises'? If it doesn't include sidewalks, parking lots, etc, then no, wouldn't really have a problem with it.

[mojo84]

Good comments. Looking for a few more and I'll pose another question or comment for consideration.

I think we also need to know what about means.

[mojo84]

Here is how they define premises.

Premises means a tract of land and the buildings thereon.

[mayor]

even if you're in "violation" of the (poorly written) ordinance, the punishment is a "move along" or a ticket. There's no ride.

Stupid laws are stupid.

[puma guy]

even if you're in "violation" of the (poorly written) ordinance, the punishment is a "move along" or a ticket. There's no ride.

Stupid laws are stupid.

Like no "Ice Cold Beer" signs!

[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.

What about being outside of a building?

There are loitering laws that take care of that without passing new vague ones.

[KLB]

The ordinance is obviously intended to be enforced only against the "wrong sort." As such, it's highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. But I'm not volunteering to put myself and my pocketbook in jeopardy to test the ordinance, and I advise caution before anyone else does.

[mayor]

The ordinance is obviously intended to be enforced only against the "wrong sort." As such, it's highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. But I'm not volunteering to put myself and my pocketbook in jeopardy to test the ordinance, and I advise caution before anyone else does.

If it's in Texas, according to this document, this is a list of municipal jurisdiction: https://www.municode.com/webcontent/sta ... ets/tx.pdf - may not be comprehensive. IANAL...

[mayor]

As mayor, no way I'd have let the council pass this. Or i wouldn't have signed it if they did. I'd have suggested they send it to the city attorney for assistance. There are no definitions.

actually, there may have been. We don't see the entire ordinance. I could be wrong.

[Grundy1133]

As mayor, no way I'd have let the council pass this. Or i wouldn't have signed it if they did. I'd have suggested they send it to the city attorney for assistance. There are no definitions.

[mojo84]

Here you go. It is an Olmos Park, TX ordinance.

http://library.municode.com/tx/olmos_pa ... ABPUPRBUNI

Here are the questions. Should this ordinance get similar attention from self proclaimed protectors of our rights and Constitution? Is it just not sensational enough to draw the attention of the attention seekers?

For those of you that are zeroing in on the private property portion, take a moment to consider it includes "in or about" public buildings.