When I first read Harker Heights’ loitering ordinance, §130.03, I couldn’t believe my eyes. It’s one of the broadest, most subjective ordinances I’ve encountered, to the point where I question how my local elected officials could consider such a measure. This ordinance doesn’t merely overstep; it disregards fundamental constitutional rights, undermines the concept of public space, and empowers authorities to legislate “morality.” Let’s dive into why this law is not only irrational but also deeply harmful.
Ignoring Constitutional Protections and Rights
The first line of this ordinance reads, “A person commits a violation if he or she loiters or prowls in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.” Right from the start, this language sets a dangerous precedent by disregarding established legal protections. It’s so broad that it could apply to anyone, anywhere, at any time, without even defining “loitering.” According to this wording, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time could make you a criminal.
The ordinance goes on to state that “Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a police officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object.” In other words, if you don’t immediately comply with police presence or choose to remain silent, you are labeled suspicious. Under Texas law, citizens aren’t required to identify themselves unless under lawful arrest. Yet, here officers can demand identification simply because someone is standing in public, with refusal treated as grounds for suspicion.
This approach not only ignores the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination but also disregards the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to counsel. The ordinance states, “A police officer shall, prior to any arrest, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm… by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and to explain his or her presence or conduct.” This means that individuals are forced to justify their actions in public spaces under threat of arrest.
Further, the ordinance allows a police officer to arrest a person suspected of loitering or prowling without a warrant if they believe that obtaining a warrant would risk the suspect’s escape. This blatant disregard for our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures is alarming and underscores how this ordinance seeks to circumvent established legal rights.
Vague Wording Invites Discrimination and Abuse
The language in this ordinance is so vague it could target nearly anyone. By criminalizing behavior deemed “not usual for law-abiding individuals,” the ordinance leaves interpretation open to the subjective view of law enforcement. But what is “not usual”? Walking alone at night? Sitting at a bus stop? Jogging after dark? Without a clear standard, this ordinance becomes a tool for profiling and potential discrimination, opening the door for abuse based on personal bias.
When law enforcement has the discretion to decide what is “suspicious,” anyone can be a target, often based on arbitrary standards. Such ambiguity turns this ordinance into a tool for discrimination rather than one for actual public safety.
Presuming Public Access Means Public Ownership
One particularly troubling part of the ordinance is its assumption that anything visible from a public space is under government jurisdiction. The definition of “public place” in this context includes streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, and even doorways and grounds surrounding buildings visible to public view. This mindset may explain why the city feels it has the authority to dictate what residents can and cannot display on their property. But just because something is visible from a public area doesn’t mean it’s public property.
This overreach implies that the city believes it has control not just over public spaces but over private property visible from public areas. This is a dangerous precedent, infringing on property rights and creating a slippery slope toward even more intrusive regulations.
Legislating Morality and Personal Conduct
At its core, §130.03 is about legislating morality rather than ensuring public safety. It criminalizes behavior deemed “unusual” or “uncomfortable” rather than addressing any concrete public safety threat. The problem with legislating morality is that it infringes on personal freedoms. Morality is inherently subjective; a government enforcing one version of it on everyone violates fundamental rights.
By criminalizing harmless behaviors—like sitting, standing, or simply being in a public space—this ordinance transforms public areas from community spaces into zones of surveillance and control. This approach restricts our freedom to move through our communities without fear, all while serving a moral agenda rather than public safety.
A Clear and Present Danger to Our Rights
In sum, this ordinance infringes on so many rights it’s hard to know where to begin. It disregards constitutional protections, criminalizes innocent behaviors, and blurs the line between public and private space. By empowering authorities and disempowering citizens, §130.03 is a recipe for rights violations on a massive scale.
If this is the standard of governance in Harker Heights, it’s no surprise that the city feels justified in imposing additional restrictions on what residents can do in their own homes and yards. When local governments believe they can legislate based on subjective morality instead of respecting individual rights, we’re on a path toward a far less free society.
The Urgent Need for Change
This ordinance needs to go. It’s not just unreasonable; it’s unconstitutional. I urge Harker Heights to reconsider this overreach and focus on genuine safety rather than subjective moral judgments of what’s “usual.” Our rights and freedoms depend on it.
One last note: I find it particularly concerning that §130.03 is the only ordinance I’ve reviewed without any indication of when it was passed or last amended. Transparency about an ordinance’s history is critical for accountability, and the absence of this information raises even more questions about its legitimacy.