|
<br />-
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />tously in adopting such language into law unless there is a compelling need to
<br />provide a kind of protection for police officers.
<br />
<br />Arnulf Zweig, 2400 Malabar Drive, agreed with Mr. Peters' statements, and said that he ,
<br />is extrem~l~ oppo,sed to Subse~tions, (2)" (3), and (4) in Section 4,! 725 of the Disor~erly >,~
<br />Conduct ordlnance (C.B.138) because the language does not give a clear definition of -~
<br />what breaking the, law means. He pointed out that in (3) the language "inherently likely
<br />to provoke' violent reaction" is vague. He did not know what conduct was proscribed.
<br />Some of the language could fall with the prohibition of Subsection (3) and yet be pro-
<br />tected by the First Amendment, Right of Free Speech. Assistant City Attorney Swanson
<br />,reviewed the City Attorney's memo of December 16 noting that the courts have ruled the
<br />term "obscene" is sufficiently definitive to proscribe conduct that is unlawful. It was
<br />the desire of the Attorney to use language approved by the courts rather than to draft
<br />an ordinance in terms of behavior. Although some may object to the provision of Sub-
<br />section (3) as being "fighting language," the Attorney noted the proposed language had
<br />come directly from court opinion.
<br />
<br />Continuing, Mr., ~wan~on said Supsection (4) is intended to allow for the dispersal of
<br />crowds when the group is engaged in an act with no legitimate purpose rather than, just
<br />dealing witp each, individual in, the group. Subsection (6) comes directly f~om existing
<br />State law and is to prohibit such disorderly acts as "stink bombs." The Attorney noted
<br />that general language is frequently required in drafting such ordinances ~~ the proposed I
<br />disorderly conduct ordinance because of the impossibility of identifying every individual
<br />act that could be conceived and yet clearly within the intention of the prohibition:
<br />
<br />Police Chief said that he worked with Mr. Long of the Attorney's office in redrafting '~-_
<br />these ordinances and has no obj ection to the changes because they address themselves to
<br />problems the police have been faced within the past.
<br />
<br />Manager asked Mr. Swanson if he felt a need to revise the ordinance in light of the
<br />public comments. Mr. ,swanson re, Plie, d that ,the City Attorney's office as a whole does II
<br />not feel there is anything inherently wrong with the orqinance. He said that if the
<br />Council wished the iarlguage' to be more specific it could be worked on but that would
<br />not necessarily improve the ordinances. He suggested looking for something of a sub-
<br />stantive nature and then going back and making changes, to improve the lang~age.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr inq~ired at what point lawful activi~y of a crowd such as a political
<br />rally would become an unlawful act under Subsection (4), requiring the police to dis-
<br />perse the cro,wd. Mr. Swanson indictaed he would need more ~acts before answering the
<br />question. Under the ordinance it did not require the police to wait until an unlawful
<br />act, e.g., destruction of property, had occurred before the'police took action. It re-
<br />mains a matter of judgment by the officer as to what is a reasonable risk. That judg-
<br />ment,to,bereviewedby the court. He noted many cr~minal statutues require this kind
<br />of judgment.
<br />
<br />In response to a question from Mrs. Beal, Manager said the proposed ordinances have _
<br />come before the Council, as a result of Council and Administration request to the At- '~ ~
<br />torney's office to clarify and make more specific the language that is now in the Code. ~ --
<br />
<br />Both Councilmen Williams and Mobr expressed their concern about trying to rewrite the
<br />ordinance at a Council meeting. As a result of comments by Mrs. Beal and Mr. Mohr,
<br />Mr. Peters encourage the Council to use the ORS definition of obscenity rather' than
<br />the language in the p~oposed ordinance. With regard to Subsection ,(2), Mrs. Campbell
<br />asked what action a police officer could take if someone swore at him. Police Chief
<br />noted the language in the proposed ordinance ~s' identical to exis~ing ordinance and
<br />allows the officer to make an arrest, depending on the circumstances.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hershner noted it ~ould be easier for the Council to review the proposed ordinances
<br />if the existing provis ions of the Code were ayailable for compari~on. -
<br />
<br />The lack of s,t,anqa,rds and definition in S,ubse,ctions ,(':I-) and (6) were noted by Council-
<br />men Mohr and Hershner. ' , " ,
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr, moved ,seconded by Mrs. Beal that a Council subc~mmittee be appointed
<br />to examine, along with resource people from the ,staff or other sources"the
<br />revisions in C.B.138 re: Disorderly Conduct. Motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council Bill No. 139 re: Indecent ./'-A',
<br />Touching be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous -
<br />90nsent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion
<br />carried unanimously and the bill wa~ read the second time by council bill
<br />,number only " .
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council Bill No. 139 be approved and
<br />gi ven flnal passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the
<br />b~l was declared passed and numbered 16671.
<br />
<br />"3~ 1 12(14/72 - 2
<br />
|