http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article36967686.html

In short, the city of Charlotte is looking at ways to cut down on crime. One idea is to create a Public Safety Zone, where they can designate an area as one of these zones, and ban people with arrests from entering this zone.

My question is, how is this even remotely legal? How could this possible stand up to judicial scrutiny?

This article makes mention of denying people access to these safety zones, based on something as small as an arrest. Not even a conviction. To me, that seems to violate all sorts of due process.

This also seems to shoot goof juice in the face of the notion of going to prison to repay one's debt to society. Now, I know that a private entity (such as an apartment complex or an employer) can bar someone with prior convictions from participating in the organization. But this concept seems to imply that something like a neighborhood (public land) could be deemed a public safety zone, and ban someone from setting foot within.

I think a strong argument could also be made that this could violate one's 4th amendment rights.

Thoughts?

Quote :

"The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and Charlotte City Council are discussing whether to create “public safety zones,” city areas where people with past arrests would be prohibited from entering. Under the controversial proposal, Chief Kerr Putney could designate a high-crime area as a safety zone in response to crimes such as drug sales or discharging guns that were committed on public property. Someone who has been arrested for crimes in the area could be issued a notice that they are no longer allowed to enter, for as long as the safety zone is in effect. Entering the zone after being prohibited would be a misdemeanor. The bans could be appealed for reasons that include entering the area to go to work or to pick up a child from school. The idea isn’t new to Charlotte. The safety zones would be similar to the city’s “prostitution-free zones” that were started in 2005. That ordinance had a three-year sunset and wasn’t renewed in 2008. n 2013, the city also received an injunction against the Hidden Valley Kings gang. It prohibited some Kings members from “driving, standing, sitting, walking or appearing together in public view” to possessing firearms or drugs, or being in the presence of anyone who does. That injunction expired last year, though CMPD said it could seek another injunction against members of the gang. Council member Al Austin represents northwest Charlotte, including some high-crime neighborhoods. He said he first floated the idea of the zones to former Chief Rodney Monroe. “We were looking for additional tools that could address some of the criminal behavior,” Austin said. “We want something more flexible.” The city has been experimenting with different tactics to lower crime. In addition to the injunction against gang members, the city has used a public nuisance ordinance, which gives it the ability to seize private property from owners who continually have police come to their property. There is some urgency to finding new solutions. Violent crime, including homicides, are up this year compared with 2014 and previous years. “Truthfully, I don’t know if they will do any good,” said City Council member Claire Fallon, who chairs the public safety committee. The committee heard a CMPD presentation about the zones in early September. “If someone doesn’t obey the law, do you think a safety zone will impress them?” Fallon also said she’s worried the safety zones would simply move crime from one part of the city to another. “We would take it off the plate of one community and then put them on another community,” she said. A CMPD presentation to council members notes the zones could be an “additional tool to assist in maintaining or repairing a neighborhood or location’s reputation” and could also “disrupt nuisance criminal activity.” But the department also acknowledges that there are downsides. Among them: a perception that the zones would be “an overhanded arbitrary government action” and would place a harmful “brand” on a neighborhood. Portland, Ore., created drug and prostitution exclusion zones in 1992. But former Mayor Tom Potter led a push in 2007 to end the zones, saying they just moved criminal activity to a new area and that African-Americans were being disproportionally excluded from the areas. The safety zones could be triggered by crimes that occur on public property, such as a sidewalk or street. Some crimes, such as prostitution, easily fit that category. Others, such as drug dealing, could qualify as well, if the buyer and seller met on a street corner and then moved inside a home to make the actual sale. The proposal will come back before the public safety committee for further discussion. It would need to pass the committee as well as a full City Council vote to be enacted. "

9/30/2015 8:53:37 PM

Not sure if it will pass, and if it does, if it will do any good

9/30/2015 9:01:49 PM

this idea is absurd

9/30/2015 10:10:46 PM

Not to mention it's probably not even remotely legal.

9/30/2015 10:18:14 PM

It hurts my brain to try and figure out how that plan ever got past the water cooler discussion. Really boggles my mind grown adults in charge of things could run with that idea.

10/1/2015 1:20:50 AM

while a retarded idea, you're one to talk

10/1/2015 1:27:06 AM

I am a one, and I do occasionally talk...?

10/1/2015 3:28:51 AM

10/1/2015 4:22:16 AM

maybe there could be a compromise where the thugs have to wear a letter "T" on their chest

10/1/2015 7:01:42 AM

Surely, wearing the letter T would then become the trend for suburbanites and fashionistas alike

10/1/2015 7:08:29 AM

I imagine this as like a 10'x10' section of sidewalk with a bunch of scared white people crammed into it.

Is this supposed to be like a park? And who would enforce it? Cops on duty at all times checking peoples backgrounds?

10/1/2015 7:13:25 AM

seriously tho, if someone is too much of a danger to go to a particular public place then dont let them out of freakin jail

10/1/2015 7:16:09 AM

i, for one, welcome our new safe zone overlords.

10/1/2015 8:34:02 AM

This is kinda throwing a wrench in my greater Charlotte area hooker fantasy.

10/1/2015 9:31:49 AM

Just when you thought Charlotte couldn't suck any harder...

10/1/2015 9:41:08 AM

Why would you create a "prostitution-free zone" when prostitution is already illegal?

[Edited on October 1, 2015 at 11:47 AM. Reason : 3]

10/1/2015 11:46:58 AM

So you can arrest prostitutes without needing to actually bust them (and hope they eventually go some place else).

10/1/2015 11:55:22 AM

bridget's going to have to adjust her weekend plans now

10/1/2015 12:06:25 PM

Hey man the rich bankers and business folks don't want the "undesirables" strolling through Dilworth, Ballyntyne, and Lake Normal

10/1/2015 12:08:28 PM