Saturday, December 20, 2008

Brighton Ordinance Annoyingly Vague

Looks like the city of Brighton is trying to muscle in on Hamburg Township and steal some of its limelight.

That's how I interpret the city's recently passed ordinance against annoying people, as discussed in the Livingston Press and Argus for Friday (Dec. 1, 2008).

According to the newspaper, the public conduct code states that:

"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."

It adds that, "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."

The ordinance is modeled after one in Royal Oak, Michigan.

The commenters are having a lot of fun with this on the newspaper's website. And I certainly can think of many people whom I would love to see ticketed and fined under this ordinance. Drivers who fail to use their turn signals are annoying. Drivers who engage in "road range" are annoying. Diners who take too long at their table when others are waiting are annoying. You get the picture.

But of course, I don't get to issue the tickets. The police will. And it will be their judgment that determines what is annoying.

I also can think of cases that are less frivolous. People who make repeated phone calls to a person and hang up as a form of harassment could be ticketed and that would be a good thing. It might even cover bullying activity.

But it seems like the ordinance is broader than it needs to be to cover those things and that it fails to alert the public to exactly what they must do to face getting a ticket.

Which means constitutional scholars might find it annoying.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You are right. This is an annoying ordinance.