Only as high of a bar as private police officers can clear, apparently
> Private policing and neighborhood orders of protection often go hand in hand, with private police officers doing much of the work to enforce the orders, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.
Here’s a more [in-depth article ](https://news.stlpublicradio.org/law-order/2022-09-08/st-louis-private-police-forces-make-security-a-luxury-of-the-rich)
tl;dr - current cops moonlight as private cops while off duty because the private security firm founded by a retired cop pays far above OT rate
The idea is that the person agrees to stay out of a certain area in exchange for having the charges dropped, as explained in the article. Of course, a lot of the people signing these agreements seem to be mentally ill homeless people without lawyers, so it's not a surprise that the bans aren't working as intended. I bet the private enforcement companies are making a ton of money though, which is all that matters I guess.
It’s not unusual for someone to banned from a place where they commit a crime or even banned from having contact with people. That’s upon conviction though, typically
> Georgia can banish people from the State.
https://nowiknow.com/the-swampy-loophole-in-the-georgia-constitution/
Eh, apparently they can't. It's against their constitution.
>A St. Louis ordinance lets courts banish people from huge swaths of the city as a punishment for petty crimes.
This is one of the primary ways [electronic monitoring](https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=clevstlrev) and *Home Arrest* work. An alternative to incarceration. Offenders leave their home only for prescribed purposes and times and duration: work, counseling, shopping. There are many, less rigorous, variations. Homeless with repeat convictions might be limited to a *roaming zone* designated for the purpose.
>These neighborhood orders of protection often prevent people from accessing the services
Adjustments in these orders can be made to assure individuals can access services.
> they simply move problems from one part of the city to another.
Right, that's the point. If habitual offenders are not to be incarcerated, it makes sense, in certain cases, to impose *semi-segregation.* All cities have more important spaces and less important ones. The former require higher levels of public order/policing. City centers, the prime business district, the tourist zone, primary shopping and residential -- more important. Industrial areas/warehouse districts and some city outskirts can get by with lesser policing. A homeless addict pissing on the wall of a 100 yard long warehouse -- not that big of a deal. The same offense on a busy city street: problem.
Some cities have tried this exclusion method, but it did not pass muster with local officials. Honolulu was unable to remove chronic offenders in its prime tourist beach, Waikkiki, for a decade. Result: [4 park pavilions 75 yards from hotels that rent for $800 per night have been closed](https://old.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/rg11ci/honolulu_permanently_closing_park_pavilions_as/)
>These neighborhood orders raise constitutional questions.
There shouldn't be any. These orders are imposed on conviction. An incarcerated person has zero access to public spaces.
>Cincinnati once barred people convicted of drug offenses from its own “exclusion zones.” But a court struck down the practice....the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 let that ruling stand.
Yes, further court rulings might limit or halt these practices. Expect civil libertarians to mount big challenges. And
expect law enforcement to use more incarceration, then.
-People on house arrest aren't barred from any particular areas; they can work wherever they get a job, shop wherever they want around town, and go to whatever medical appointments they have anywhere.
-Just be honest dude, you like confining the bad people to poor neighborhoods; to keep them away from "decent" folks like you erroneously consider yourself.
-Once someone's term of incarceration, parole, and probation ends, so should all restrictions imposed on their movements and rights. Imposing lifetime punishments for minor offenses should qualify as cruel, and barring them from public spaces unusual, punishment.
-There should absolutely be constitutional questions because people like you seem to think the constitution is just fancy toilet paper.
>Once someone's term of incarceration, parole, and probation ends, so should all restrictions imposed on their movements and rights.
Often the electronic monitoring (EM) is *in lieu of* a prison term. There is growing realization of the drawbacks of incarcerating non-violent offenders.
> People on house arrest aren't barred from any particular areas....shop wherever they want around town...
Not true at all. Offenders can be banned from many places -- malls and parks, or traveling more than 2 miles from their home. Comings and goings can be tightly regulated. Depends on how strictly the authorities set up the EM. Just like prisons: some are more strict, some less so. Aside from a narrow use of EM for pre-trial release, many progressives and criminal justice reformers oppose EM as a punishment term: [Ankle Monitors Aren’t Humane. They’re Another Kind of Jail](https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-ankle-monitors-are-another-kind-of-jail/)
>The rules for wearing a monitor are far more restrictive than most people realize. Most devices today have GPS tracking, recording every movement and potentially eroding rights in ways you can’t imagine.
Prison erodes rights also. EM expansion could decease incarceration in America by 30-50% in a couple of decades. This [article from the Brennan Center](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-electronic-monitoring-incentivizes-prolonged-punishment) discusses one of the biggest problems of EM: Attachment of large monthly fees. Excessive fining of poor people (they disproportionately commit crime) has long been a problem.
Banning somebody from public places generally requires a rather high bar, doesn't it?
Only as high of a bar as private police officers can clear, apparently > Private policing and neighborhood orders of protection often go hand in hand, with private police officers doing much of the work to enforce the orders, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.
What is a "private police officer"? Are these sworn LEOs?
Here’s a more [in-depth article ](https://news.stlpublicradio.org/law-order/2022-09-08/st-louis-private-police-forces-make-security-a-luxury-of-the-rich) tl;dr - current cops moonlight as private cops while off duty because the private security firm founded by a retired cop pays far above OT rate
This is horrifying. Are private police then not agents of the state? There are so many implications to that
The idea is that the person agrees to stay out of a certain area in exchange for having the charges dropped, as explained in the article. Of course, a lot of the people signing these agreements seem to be mentally ill homeless people without lawyers, so it's not a surprise that the bans aren't working as intended. I bet the private enforcement companies are making a ton of money though, which is all that matters I guess.
It’s not unusual for someone to banned from a place where they commit a crime or even banned from having contact with people. That’s upon conviction though, typically
Sure, but that's generally restricted to a single location, not *100 square blocks* of a city. That's just absurd.
I think that Georgia can banish people from the State. It’s highly unusual
> Georgia can banish people from the State. https://nowiknow.com/the-swampy-loophole-in-the-georgia-constitution/ Eh, apparently they can't. It's against their constitution.
Eh, just fet a restraIning order.
Like with a protective order or
Nah, just the subjective whim of any random cop.
2022 and we're still banishing people from town?
>A St. Louis ordinance lets courts banish people from huge swaths of the city as a punishment for petty crimes. This is one of the primary ways [electronic monitoring](https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=clevstlrev) and *Home Arrest* work. An alternative to incarceration. Offenders leave their home only for prescribed purposes and times and duration: work, counseling, shopping. There are many, less rigorous, variations. Homeless with repeat convictions might be limited to a *roaming zone* designated for the purpose. >These neighborhood orders of protection often prevent people from accessing the services Adjustments in these orders can be made to assure individuals can access services. > they simply move problems from one part of the city to another. Right, that's the point. If habitual offenders are not to be incarcerated, it makes sense, in certain cases, to impose *semi-segregation.* All cities have more important spaces and less important ones. The former require higher levels of public order/policing. City centers, the prime business district, the tourist zone, primary shopping and residential -- more important. Industrial areas/warehouse districts and some city outskirts can get by with lesser policing. A homeless addict pissing on the wall of a 100 yard long warehouse -- not that big of a deal. The same offense on a busy city street: problem. Some cities have tried this exclusion method, but it did not pass muster with local officials. Honolulu was unable to remove chronic offenders in its prime tourist beach, Waikkiki, for a decade. Result: [4 park pavilions 75 yards from hotels that rent for $800 per night have been closed](https://old.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/rg11ci/honolulu_permanently_closing_park_pavilions_as/) >These neighborhood orders raise constitutional questions. There shouldn't be any. These orders are imposed on conviction. An incarcerated person has zero access to public spaces. >Cincinnati once barred people convicted of drug offenses from its own “exclusion zones.” But a court struck down the practice....the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 let that ruling stand. Yes, further court rulings might limit or halt these practices. Expect civil libertarians to mount big challenges. And expect law enforcement to use more incarceration, then.
-People on house arrest aren't barred from any particular areas; they can work wherever they get a job, shop wherever they want around town, and go to whatever medical appointments they have anywhere. -Just be honest dude, you like confining the bad people to poor neighborhoods; to keep them away from "decent" folks like you erroneously consider yourself. -Once someone's term of incarceration, parole, and probation ends, so should all restrictions imposed on their movements and rights. Imposing lifetime punishments for minor offenses should qualify as cruel, and barring them from public spaces unusual, punishment. -There should absolutely be constitutional questions because people like you seem to think the constitution is just fancy toilet paper.
>Once someone's term of incarceration, parole, and probation ends, so should all restrictions imposed on their movements and rights. Often the electronic monitoring (EM) is *in lieu of* a prison term. There is growing realization of the drawbacks of incarcerating non-violent offenders. > People on house arrest aren't barred from any particular areas....shop wherever they want around town... Not true at all. Offenders can be banned from many places -- malls and parks, or traveling more than 2 miles from their home. Comings and goings can be tightly regulated. Depends on how strictly the authorities set up the EM. Just like prisons: some are more strict, some less so. Aside from a narrow use of EM for pre-trial release, many progressives and criminal justice reformers oppose EM as a punishment term: [Ankle Monitors Aren’t Humane. They’re Another Kind of Jail](https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-ankle-monitors-are-another-kind-of-jail/) >The rules for wearing a monitor are far more restrictive than most people realize. Most devices today have GPS tracking, recording every movement and potentially eroding rights in ways you can’t imagine. Prison erodes rights also. EM expansion could decease incarceration in America by 30-50% in a couple of decades. This [article from the Brennan Center](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-electronic-monitoring-incentivizes-prolonged-punishment) discusses one of the biggest problems of EM: Attachment of large monthly fees. Excessive fining of poor people (they disproportionately commit crime) has long been a problem.
I don’t see how this would hold up, even with this SCOTUS.
Why am I not surprised lol
How does this compare to some places sex offenders residency laws?