| Over at OutsideLansing.com, I've reported on (there's a partial list of good links there, although only a google news and blogs search will capture the expanding outrage) - and been reported on regarding a FOIA request and complaint to - the City of Brighton, a neighbor to our west in Livingston County. Turns out the City of Brighton's Police Chief - Tom Wightman - was the chief right here in Royal Oak. And he claims he imported the idea from Royal Oak that has generated him and Brighton a ton of justfully deserved bad news. That is - and get this blatantly unconstitutional abomination of the First Amendment - Brighton just passed an ordinance to ban "annoying" behavior. And sure enough - Royal Oak's city code has something like it on the books, although Royal Oak's looks slightly different and those differences will warrant further consideration later. But in reviewing Royal Oak's city code (hey, Royal Oak council members - thank your former chief for bringing it to public attention), its clear that poorly written "vague" regulations abound. For example - if you're worried about the "restaurant smoking ban" legislation being considered by the state legislature, its already illegal - I mean smoking (or drinking) anything, anywhere - is illegal in the City of Royal Oak. Follow me for a second down the rabbit hole: Sec 278-41(A) Inhalation of fumes. No person shall inhale, drink, eat, or otherwise introduce into his or her respiratory or circulatory system any compound, liquid, chemical or any substance known as model glue, adhesive cement, mucilage, dope, plastic solvent, or other material or substance or combination thereof having the property of releasing toxic vapors with intent of becoming intoxicated, elated, dazed, paralyzed, irrational or in any manner changing, distorting or disturbing the eyesight, thinking process, judgment, balance or coordination of such person; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the inhalation of any anesthesia for medical or dental purpose.
Now the section is titled "Glue" and I suspect the intent was to ban "glue sniffing" - but this law clearly and utterly bans, where-ever you might do it, things like smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Indeed, I can not see how it could be interpreted otherwise - that is, it is not "vague" like the Brighton annoyance law (or Royal Oak annoyance law) in that it is undefinable - it is "overbroad" in that it covers too much. But it is clear - cigarettes are "any substance ...or other material ... having the property of releasing toxic vapors ..." and they change the body (alcohol is even more clear here, because it clearly impairs judgment, moreso than cigarettes). Indeed, ingesting literally anything - except medical anesthesia - that changes eyesight, thinking, or coordination (coffee, sugar, etc. .. even carrots improve eyesight .. do that ..) is illegal. It's a failure to write good, tight regulations. To spend the time thinking about the meaning of the words and editing for clarity. If it were meaningless blog opinion - editing wouldn't be critical. But this is law and people's lives we're talking about. I'm sure its also "annoying" to smoke or drink to some people, so you could be double prosecuted on those grounds. Now for those readers in Brighton interested in Royal Oak's statute - its a bit different than Brighton's new version, despite Wightman's claim (although clear he used it as a model). Additionally, according to another news article, Birmingham has a similar ordinance which its City Manager claims was on the books since 1963. And the Brighton police chief himself justifies the law by saying "other cities have had" the ordinances for "decades". Problem was - in 1971 - the City of Cincinnatti lost a case (Coates v. City of Cincinatti) in the US Supreme Court on precisely the language of "annoying" behavior. It's been unconstitutional for most of those decades. Click through for the details of the two (Royal Oak v. Brighton) city codes: |
