Brighton OKs annoyance ordinance

DAILY PRESS & ARGUS

December 21, 2008

By Jim Totten and Kristofer Karol

Don't "annoy" someone in Brighton, or you might get a ticket.

The Brighton City Council on Thursday night approved a more stringent code for public conduct, and those who violate the rules--including annoying someone else--could could be ticketed and fined. The ordinance amendments were modeled after those in Royal Oak, where Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman previously worked.

"When we've encountered instances of harassment, or where citizens report instances of harassment, we didn't have an ordinance to deal with that," Wightman said, adding no particular incident prompted him to seek the ordinance. "It's not (for) somebody that says something annoying. We're talking about some course of action for repeated acts."

Included in the ordinance is a section that reads: "It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose."

That backs up an existing section that states, "It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motions any person in any public place."

Two City Council members expressed concerns about the ordinance amendments, but ended up voting for them.

Council member Jim Bohn said some of the language was subjective.

"I'm not sure what 'alarm' or 'seriously annoy' means," Bohn said.

Council member Jim Muzzin asked if he would be fined if he stood up and read "War and Peace" during his five-minute limit at the call to the public portion of City Council meetings. City Attorney Paul Burns said that would not be cause for a fine or ticket.

Burns said City Council chambers are considered a "bastion of democracy" and the law provides a wide breadth for free speech. Wightman added people can still face up to a $500 fine if they attend a meeting with the specific intention of causing a disruption.

Burns said there could be a situation where a ticket issued violates someone's right to free speech, but he said his office would be reviewing these cases.

City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made by police officers, with Wightman adding he believed the ordinance would pertain more so to verbal interactions and actions rather than, for example, a person wearing a T-shirt that upsets people.

Foster said the rules, which take effect Jan. 2, are aimed at those who interfere in public areas, as opposed to residents who are simply annoying for the sake of annoyance.

Violators of the new ordinance amendments can face up to a $100 civil infraction, Wightman said. Also included in the ordinance is a provision for those who disrupt, obstruct or resist an officer. They can face up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail. Wightman said nobody has violated the meeting ordinance during his tenure as chief, which began in 2005.

Similar ordinances in communities across the nation have been met with opposition.

Detroit was presented with a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union in 2002 for its ordinance against "annoying persons." The matter was settled out of court, with the city repealing the provision.

In 2007, the Alliance Defense Fund sued a Louisiana town after a resident was threatened with arrest for being "annoying" under the community's ordinance for standing roughly 100 feet outside a local bar and talking about his faith to passers-by. A federal judge ruled against that ordinance.

Spokespeople for the ACLU and the fund could not be reached for comment.

Contact Daily Press & Argus reporters Jim Totten at (517) 548-7088 or at jtotten@gannett.com, or Kristofer Karol at (517) 552-2835 or at kkarol@gannett.com.

LINK