The Town Council voted through a resolution on 02/20/2024 that broadens parameters that make it easier for local police to question or “act” with regard to suspected trespassing.
From a civil liberties perspective, on paper, it appears to make sense as long as it is applied in practice with fidelity to the ordinance.
Based on my understanding of the ordinance, more than simply being on a person’s property is needed for the police to act. In my interpretation of the ordinance, “intent” is defined as a person being physically on the premises AND then meeting at least one of three criteria (peering into windows, pulling door handles, possessing a tool whose apparent design is to break into a car). In other words, simply being on someone’s property is not enough for the police to intercede.
I emailed the Mayor and Town Council President to confirm whether my read of it was correct and received a quick response from Captain Ives:
Mr. Migueis,
Thank you for the question. Yes, you are correct; the individual has to be on the property and meet one of the three criteria listed in the ordinance. I hope this answers your question.
Best,
Bill
Aside from the substantive, a bit of tension arose during the discussion as Councilman Donnelly questioned the BHPD Captain on the ordinance, bringing up concerns in connection with an ongoing matter he has with the department. This is the second time Councilman Donnelly and Mayor Devanney had an exchange on Mr. Donnelly’s experience with the local legal system.
Here is the clip of that exchange: