Evacuation Law

[Paul Stofer]

A new law has been passed in Texas that starts September 1. It allows law enforcement to arrest anyone who refuses to leave during a mandatory evacuation. Any thoughts?

 

[Brandon Goforth]

Not surprised with a growing government that wants to control everything...

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Yeah, lay low until the hurricane starts to hit and then there aren't any cops to worry about.
I would think a reasonable cop wouldn't mess with you too much if you could show that you were prepared and/or affiliated with the media somehow. I'm sure the motivation and purpose behind this law is to have the authority to get the ignorant and stubborn people out who simply don't understand what's about to happen. It's not targetted at storm chasers.

 

[Angie Norris]

This is interesting, but it raises a few questions. Is there a specific precedent they are basing the law on? Are there provisions in place for evacuating those who cannot leave on their own, ie, the elderly, disabled or homeless? Would public transportation be used to facilitate the evacuation process? Are provisions in place for housing the evacuees on a long term basis that includes child care and pet care? I wonder about the constitutionality of the law as well.
Is there a link to the text of the new law?

 

[Paul Stofer]

I found this article. Very interesting..

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/jul/26/police-can-use-force-compel-hurricane-evacuation/

I'm looking for the actual act that was passed, when I find it I'll post the new law.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I just read that article and they did mention the "storm watcher" that got killed, so maybe some cops would apply the law to storms chasers. I think it's BS and the government should stay out of it, but I won't allow it to affect my plans. Surely they aren't going to arrest media people, so go get a press ID. You can go make one and I know there was a place that would do it for you in the past. I don't know if it would work, but it can't hurt your chances of being allowed to stay. Worst case scenario is you leave and go to the other side of town or down the shore a ways and watch the hurricane from your backup spot. You should get down there a day early IMO to find a couple safe places to ride it out IMO.

 

[Paul Stofer]

Do you mean showing "fake" press credentials to law enforcement? Not too entirely sure on the legality of that, if that was what you were implying of course (I don't think it was). I'm an employee for a TV station here in Dallas, and we had a guy running around showing "press credentials" to law enforcement.. I believe he got in significant trouble for that. I suppose if your creating freelance photographer credentials, then there probably isn't any harm in that?

 

[Dan Robinson]

There is no official entity that issues/authorizes press credentials, just the media company for whom the journalist works for. Thanks to 'freedom of the press' in the USA, anyone can call themselves a journalist and be 'legit' - IE, you don't need to be employed by a TV station to invoke your constitutional right to be a journalist. That includes freelancers. Making your own creds isn't against the law, as long as you don't put false logos or info on there (for example, printing the TWC or CNN logo on it when in fact you aren't employed by them). Just put your web site address and logo on there along with your photo, get it laminated and that should be enough.

Hurricanes are one instance where it pays to look like an obvious storm chaser. Lightbars, antennas, instruments, logos, web URLs, the works. You don't want to look like an average Joe. If you're embarrased for people to know you're a chaser, don't worry, there won't be many people to see you. Granted, there have been problems in the past with people 'impersonating' media, but I'd rather look very much like I was someone with a legit reason to be there.

 

[David Wolfson]

Angie is on the right track, I think. The police have the duty to enforce the law. They don't however have discretion of whether to enforce the law -- only an implied power to interpret the law in light of circumstances, subject to the oversight of the courts. And they don't have the power to determine guilt or innocence.

What this law mainly does IMO is convey a greater duty and a liability to police and public safety to ensure people are evacuated. Previously if someone doesn't evacuate then you can maintain it was in some sense a matter of choice if they suffer the consequences.

Consider Katrina. Thousands of people didn't evacuate because they couldn't evacuate -- for a whole variety of circumstances including handicap, lack of suitable transportation, obligation to others, etc. Hundreds of them perished. Since the law allowed them to stay, public agencies were mostly off the hook, providing evacuation services on a best effort basis.

When a local official issues a "reasonable force" declaration then they take on an obligation to do it, and do it equitably. The inevitable outcome whereby well-situated households are escorted to safety while the poor and infirm remain doesn't play well in law or morality IMHO.

 

[Marcus Hicks]

Unfortunatly these laws are inacted because people don't exercise common sense anymore. People refuse to leave because they don't believe it will be bad and then blame someone else when there stuck on a roof waiting for a rescue. Then there are those who can't leave on their own. Wonder if the law will consider this as well. For a chaser with credentials you should be ok.

 

[Warren Faidley]

This is just another unnecessary law related to growing government control and fear of civil actions. The “lawâ€￾ is totally unconstitutional. The fourth amendment clearly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

However, the near term concern about this law is as follows:

“A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster.â€￾

So what is “threatenedâ€￾. Could “threatenedâ€￾ by a disaster be interpreted by a local jurisdiction as a high risk day? Sounds outlandish, but laws are often stretched into odd interpretations.

The language will eventually be challenged in the Texas Supreme Court and maybe the US Supreme Court and will be nixed, likely by someone (e.g., a business interest) who is forced to leave and they suffer some type of substantial loss, e.g., looting. Of course, until then, media personnel and others who have legitimate reasons to be covering hurricanes and similar events ***might*** bear the burden of the law being abused -- beyond the intended purpose, I suppose -- 1: of getting people out of obviously dangerous places. 2: Limiting civil liability. (Which should have been the sole language of the bill). I would not be surprised to see other states follow this action. For chasers, I think this just goes to illustrate that personal freedoms are always at risk when laws like this are passed. My gut feeling is that most areas will not enforce the law to any extreme, and the concern will be with large public areas. We will see!

Here is a copy of the house bill:

HB 1831:

Sec. 418.185. MANDATORY EVACUATION.

(a) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to be in an evacuated area, including a person who returns to the area under a phased reentry plan or credentialing process under Section 418.050.
(b) A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by order may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave and authorize the use of reasonable force to remove persons from the area.
(c) The governor and a county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by a concurrent order may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave.
(d) A person is civilly liable to a governmental entity, or a nonprofit agency cooperating with a governmental entity, that conducts a rescue on the person's behalf for the cost of the rescue effort if:
(1) the person knowingly ignored a mandatory
evacuation order under this section and:
(A) engaged in an activity or course of action
that a reasonable person would not have engaged in; or
(B) failed to take a course of action a
reasonable person would have taken;
(2) the person's actions under Subdivision (1) placed
the person or another person in danger; and
(3) a governmental rescue effort was undertaken on the
person's behalf.
(e) An officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision who issues or is working to carry out a mandatory evacuation order under this section is immune from civil liability for any act or omission within the course and scope of the person's authority under the order.

####

 

[Joe Dorn]

This is interesting, but it raises a few questions. Is there a specific precedent they are basing the law on? Are there provisions in place for evacuating those who cannot leave on their own, ie, the elderly, disabled or homeless? Would public transportation be used to facilitate the evacuation process? Are provisions in place for housing the evacuees on a long term basis that includes child care and pet care? I wonder about the constitutionality of the law as well.
Is there a link to the text of the new law?

Texas has the best hurricane evacuation plans of any state, period! We have paired counties such as the one I work in Bell, 200 miles inland, with coastal Brazoria, just west of Galveston Island.

The evacuation for Ike started about three days before landfall for the 'special needs' with what ever special transportation requirements furnished. Then evacuation for others started with transportation to the bus locations available. When the buses arrived here, we had shelters ready with food, beds and if necessary medical other special requirements available.

I did a round of the facilities several days after the initial evacuation and many of the people were ready to make this their home. The shelters were furnished by various groups and the staff was 90% volunteers. The kids had games and other energy reducing aids available.

Yes, we have facilities for pets and other large animals. The pets are kept in kennels and transportable furnished from the shelters to the kennels so that the evacuees can visit their animals. Veterinarian care is also furnished.

For those that choose to self evacuate, routes are clearly defined with supplemental fuel and rest stops along the routes. Generators are furnished to critically located fueling points.

I can understand the need for the law, several people, whose bodies will never be found, would be alive today if it had been used on Bolivar Peninsular. Evacuate or die was a valid warning for the impact area.

Will the law be abused? Yes, just as speed traps abound around the country, but for the most part it will be used as intended. I know many of the officials involved due to our planning meetings and I can assure you their intentions is to save as many lives as possible without putting 'last' responders' lives in jeopardy.

I have not seen or read the law so I do not know how it covers media people. I was not even aware of the law until I saw this thread. It is on my 'to do' list.

 

[Ric Burney]

From what Warren posted, it seems that the 'teeth' of this new law is more aimed at recovering the costs of rescue efforts who chose to stay and got in trouble doing so.

 

[Marcus Opitz]

Like Warren said, I wonder if this could morph into enforcement of travel on high risk days….I hope not. You would think would be hard to interrupt the commerce and activity in the plains on a day where although severe weather is likely, but not as certain a hurricane about to make landfall….I could see this being expanded to include anybody within 5 miles of a tornado, or other dangerous weather phenomenon. I think assistance to people unable to evacuate should be the focus instead of forced evacuation. It is a shame that stubborn people get killed in situations like this, but I don't like where the trend is headed. Living live is inherently dangerous (unless you live an a padded room) and there is a point where protecting ourselves from ourselves makes it uncomfortable.

I will venture to GUESS that a study was performed to compare the search/rescue costs if some stayed vs. the cost to secure an assumed "vacant area" (not counting looters-although likely fewer). Remember, many jurisdictions budgets are in the red and cost control ranks way up there with basic security, ect.

 

[Joshua Nall]

I can understand the need for the law, several people, whose bodies will never be found, would be alive today if it had been used on Bolivar Peninsular.

This can be applied to almost anything. Folks get killed by lightning too. Are we going to pass a law you have to go indoors during thunderstorms. These folks would be alive today if they had of been indoors.

It's illegal for kids to ride in the back of a truck now... that was a real joy when I was growing up... but a few folks got killed... so they passed a law. Are we going to do this with everything?

Lot's of folks die from eating wrong and being lazy, I respect their right to eat wrong and be lazy. Government should not dictate what they eat and it should not pay for medical bills due to their decision.

Able bodied people should be responsible for themselves and should suffer the consequences of their decisions (staying put during a hurricane) without government interference or help. If people want to be ignorant, let them be ignorant, and face ruin. But no... the "smart" folks have to tell all the dumb folks what to do.

What this mentality leads to is out of control government. When "the people"...like the storm watcher guy... loose control of government they loose their freedoms. It really is that simple and it will start to effect our hobby and every other aspect of life. LOOK AT HISTORY... never underestimate the power of government to control you.... completely. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says when things start tipping that way.

And professor Gates cannot be arrested in his own home for having a big mouth or complaining loudly.

I respect law enforcement's authority to maintain control and enforce existing law. I hate media has not been reporting the full story. Gates followed the officer OUTSIDE his home and continued to insult him, in front of other officers and within earshot of other homes, even after given two warnings that he would be arrested if he continued.