THOMASVILLE- Thomasville City Council met for their regular meeting on Monday night, where they approved the first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 11 of offenses to include new noise and loitering ordinances. 

According to City Attorney Tim Sanders, there was currently no ordinance prohibiting loitering. 

Loitering is defined in the ordinance as when individuals are “in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.” 

The ordinance also lists factors that may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted. Factors include the individual “taking flight upon the appearance of law enforcement, refusal to identify himself or herself, or manifesting endeavors to conceal himself/herself, along with any objects.” 

The new ordinance also allows for law enforcement, unless impractical, to afford individuals the right to dispel any alarm or immediate concern prior to an arrest. 

While the ordinance seemed reasonable in theory, some citizens raised concerns about where officers would be patrolling and targeting loitering. 

Audrey Linder addressed the City Council during public input about the noise ordinance. 

“As I read the noise ordinance, I was reminded of an old saying: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” What I’m referring to is that you’re not policing all of our communities the same,” she said. 

Linder explained that when the police department narrows in on one specific community, there are things they may not hear or know about, or otherwise police as effectively, if they were patrolling and treating every neighborhood the same. 

“The ordinances themselves do not present a problem,” she continued. “My concern is how they are handled. Will they be handled professionally and respectfully or are they handled in some cases heavy-handedly?” 

Linder went on to ask would the response be based on the offender who violated the ordinances, the way they dressed, the way they looked or the officer on duty. 

“It is not enough for the Council to say they trust these ordinances will be handled professionally and fairly,” she said. “It must be messaged not only through words, but by putting things in place that ensure consequences if a community is not properly policed. We know that the people who are violating the ordinances might be a part of the problem sometimes, but it has to be a give and take.” 

Linder noted that several communities now have police cameras, these ordinances and said there is discussion of an armored vehicle. 

“If there is policing in my neighborhood 20 times an hour, another neighborhood five times an hour and another neighborhood never, then it is more likely you’ll hear a tree fall in my neighborhood,” she concluded. 

Council member Scott Chastain thanked Linder for her comments, explaining because this ordinance is a living document, changes can be made as issues arise. 

“We have several ordinances and none of them are perfect, and I’m sure things will come up, but I think this is a great start,” Chastain said. 

With that Mayor Pro Team Todd Mobley asked for a motion to approve the first reading of the amended ordinance. A motion was made and seconded. The Council will now hear the second reading during their next regular Council meeting.