PORT TOWNSEND — Disruptive visitors to Jefferson County government facilities can be temporarily removed from public buildings and could face yearlong entry restrictions under a newly approved trespass ordinance.
County commissioners Tuesday unanimously passed the law, based on city of Port Townsend facility restrictions, over objections voiced at a hearing that the guidelines are vague and could unfairly target people with mental health issues.
“I’ve been subject to behavior here at the courthouse that does make me take this seriously, and I feel there is a lack of tools to address it,” commission Chairwoman Kate Dean said without elaborating.
“I don’t want to see someone in crisis arrested, but I would like to see him removed from the building in order to be safe.”
The ordinance establishes a code of conduct that “prohibits illegal behavior, dangerous or unsafe behavior, and behavior that is unreasonably disruptive to the use of County facilities by others.”
While Nat Jacob of Jefferson Associated Counsel said he applauded efforts not to haul disruptive individuals off to jail, he said he was concerned about criminalizing otherwise legal behavior, warning the ordinance could create “a slippery slope.”
Tom Thiersch, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Coalition for Open Government, said the wording of the ordinance is “simply ambiguous.”
“When people talk on their cellphones that are too loud, I think that’s disruptive,” Thiersch said.
In fact, under the ordinance, that behavior can get a person banned from a county facility.
Thiersch said notices outlining the ordinance’s restrictions should be posted at county facilities, which officials at the meeting said is a good idea.
The ordinance was presented by Sheriff’s Chief Civil Deputy Trevor Hansen and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker during a 30-minute hearing and commissioners’ discussion.
Hansen said in an interview that the restrictions, which include an appeal mechanism, were devised by county officials and a courthouse employees’ committee.
The ordinance does not apply to attendees of public meetings.
He said there were about a half-dozen instances in 2018 that would have warranted “trespassing” individuals from the courthouse.
He told the three commissioners that employees locked themselves in their offices for fear of harm from individuals the workers considered dangerous.
Hansen said the behavior was not criminal but included actions that “made staff feel unsafe by being followed around and being harangued and harassed.”
It included behavior by people who, for example, talked of conspiracy theories and generated mental health concerns for those individuals among employees.
Hansen compared putting together the ordinance to “walking a tightrope” by protecting employees and guaranteeing public access to government services.
The ordinance defines dangerous or unsafe behavior as “behavior that creates an imminent and unreasonable risk of injury or harm to either persons or property of another person.”
It defines unreasonable disruptive behavior as “behavior that is not constitutionally protected and that, in consideration of the nature, scope, use and purpose of the publicly owned property in question, unreasonably interferes with others’ use and enjoyment of publicly owned property.”
Illegal behavior is prohibited by U.S., state and local laws.
Prohibited behavior is unreasonably hostile or aggressive language or gestures, unreasonably loud noise such as music and unreasonably boisterous physical behavior.
It also includes use of electronic or other communications devices in an unreasonably disruptive manner, actual or simulated sexual intercourse or sexual conduct, and public nudity, except breast feeding.
It also prohibits “behavior that is unreasonably inconsistent with the normal use for which the publicly owned property was designed and intended to be used (e.g. bathing, shaving or washing clothes in a public bathroom or skating/skateboarding in a public parking area or plaza.”
The trespass prohibitions on entering county facilities are graduated for successive violations for up to seven days, up to 90 days and up to one year.
The yearlong exclusion from a public county facility applies to conduct that presents a danger to persons or property, is imposed because of dangerous or unsafe conduct or is issued as the result of an existing trespass warning.
Persons prohibited under the trespass ordinance may still respond to a jury summons at a county facility and otherwise fulfill court appearances.
The county administrator may rescind, modify or shorten a trespass warning, which will be issued by a law enforcement officer.
“The county administrator shall rescind the trespass warning if, considering all the circumstances, the county administrator finds reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether the conduct in question was unreasonably disruptive to others on the same public property at that time,” according to the ordinance.
County Administrator Philip Morley said Tuesday the ordinance will be reviewed after a year to examine its effectiveness.
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 55650, or at pgottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
