TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

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.

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.

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

puma guy wrote:

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

You could be charged with "vaguery"

Premises means a tract of land and the buildings thereon.

mayor wrote: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.

mojo84 wrote:

twomillenium wrote: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?

KLB wrote: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 wrote: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.