Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected  ·   Blogs
Health Check · Lottery · DTV · Seasonal · Mom to Mom · Traffic · The Omaha Buzz · CityCAMS · My Weather · School Closings · HS Cribs · Restaurants · McKnight Investigates
WOWT.com on Demand
6 On Your Cell
News, Sports & Weather
Information On Your Cell
Text ALERTS
Breaking News Alerts
Direct to Your Cell Phone
Daily e-News
News & Weather Updates
delivered via email
You Cast
Submit Your Pics
and Video
What's on 6
Your Guide to NBC
& WOWT Programming
Council Approves Crowd Ordinance Save Email Print
Groups may not gather outdoors if there is a disturbance
Posted: 11:04 AM Nov 18, 2008
 Last Updated: 6:57 PM Nov 18, 2008
 Reporter: Brian Mastre
Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com
43 comments
A | A | A

Police will have new authority after the Omaha City Council approved an ordinance Tuesday to make it easier to disperse crowds.

The plan, originated by Councilman Dan Welch, aims to curb violence. It makes illegal an outside gathering of more than five persons, even on private property, which results in criminal activity or unreasonable noise between the hours of 1-6 a.m.

It will also be unlawful to refuse an order to disperse at any outside location between 1-6 a.m. where there is a disturbance. The ordinance will take effect in 60 days and may be amended.

Welch has said there's no reason large crowds would need to gather at that hour and that doing so can only make a situation "ripe for violence."

The vote on the ordinance was 5-2.
More Stories
Shooting Victim Found Near Ralston High School

Murder Suspect Arrested At Boys Town

Lawmakers to Consider Red Light Cameras

Armed Robbery in Car

 High Court Refuses to Hear Custody Case

Infant Seriously Hurt, Father Arrested

Shooting Victim May Face Charges

More Medicine Monitoring in Iowa
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Kate on Nov 20, 2008 at 05:35 PM
The city council is getting carried away with all of these laws that are for our good. Where is the Attorney General now? What happened to our right to free assembly. So now, if we assemble and God help us we light up a cigarette and pet our unmuzzled dog we are criminals in the city of Omaha. Meanwhile people are being mugged, shot in broad daylight and the police are busy arresting citizens for doing what we used to be able to do in this "free" country? But if a town wants to try to regulate the illegal citizens in their town the Attorney General is Johnny on the spot telling them it is unconstitutional...hmmm, the criminals run wild and we get our rights taken away from us. Great town.
Posted by: citizen on Nov 20, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Just another law for OPD to abuse. Look out church folks and other law abiding persons. OPDSS is out there.
Posted by: Dave on Nov 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM
So let me get this straight. If I'm outside with a group of people doing nothing wrong I'm OK, but if I'm outside with a group of people breaking laws that are already on the books then we need a new law to say thats wrong. What a waste of the taxpayers dollars. Enforce laws that are already on the books, don't create lame duck legislation so politicians can look like they are doing something. Criminals don't care how many new laws you make but they might care if we enforced existing laws and prosecuted effectively
Posted by: duh on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:59 PM
The brilliant minds outside in the early morning must be discussing global issues and solutions to solve them. They can't be gangsters
Posted by: To: To Jenny on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Why are you calling out just fathers? Mothers have just as much blame in bad parenting issues as fathers. Don't be sexist.
Posted by: RM on Nov 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Why did we need new laws, were the old ones to hard to enforce? There were already laws on the books to take care of these situations.
Posted by: Sid on Nov 19, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I heard the discussion on TV of the board meeting, and it is intended to be aimed at the businesses that don't clear their parking lots after closing. The business that doesn't cooperate could lose their occupation license or liquor license if these fights and other criminal acts are tolerated. Complaints by neighbors are part of the reasons for police to act. I don't think a family outdoors watching the stars is what they are after. Why should the police spend so much time policing these fools who should just go home? This gives them the laws to break up unruly groups before they hurt anyone or property. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Posted by: T on Nov 18, 2008 at 08:06 PM
While I don't disagree with these new ordinances, I don't believe they are going to make a huge impact on the crime Omaha is seeing. Omaha already has ordinances similar to the new ones: Refuse request to leave, disorderly conduct, obstructing, etc. The maximimum sentence on these charges is 6 months in jail and $500 fine. The trouble makers are already being arrested on these charges. The problem is the court system. People arrested on these charges usually either get the charge dismissed or receive a $50 fine. Putting the criminals in jail for their actions for at least a couple of days would make them think twice the next time they want to break the law. I encourage any honest citizen to sit through one hour of court proceedings downtown and you will leave absolutely disgusted. We don't need new laws; the ones we currently have are being enforced- just not prosecuted.
Posted by: carol on Nov 18, 2008 at 06:38 PM
I am so glad that I live outside city limits. So many of you are missing the whole point of the laws they are trying to pass. Nobody needs to be out at 1am gathering in the front yard or parking lot or anywhere else except to say goodnight and go home. The law is to keep groups from gathering and the possibility of a fight breaking out which usually happens when you get a bunch of young people or drunks in a group. Someone will cause something without a doubt. Everyone wants something done but no one wants to agree with a solution. Maybe all of you that disagree with them can write to the mayors office with some suggestions. If you don't like OPD, apply for the job and see what they go thru everyday. So, get off your high horses and help out with a solution because quite frankly I don't even like to be out anymore because of all that is going on right now.
Posted by: Be Consistent on Nov 18, 2008 at 05:58 PM
So then a big-dollar Creighton Med Center fundraiser cocktail party that resulted in a single DUI would be illegal?
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 18, 2008 at 05:24 PM
To Jenny: Parents? hahahahah. Like these kids know what parents are.
Posted by: To T on Nov 18, 2008 at 04:29 PM
That was the reported wording on just one of several proposals brought forth, didn't READ THAT in the above did you? Even Mr. Brown has issues with the prospect that innocent citizens could be harrassed under any version placed into law. And lets just say that the final wording is as you present it, who is to make the OFFICIAL determination that any post AM gathering is going to result in criminal activity before the fact? You? Me? OPD? How do you suggest to FAIRLY enforce this proposed law? I used to work at a restaurant where I didn't get off until 1AM. How does an OPD officer determine that my co-workers and I (gathered in a parking lot afterwards and just talking) are about to 'result in criminal activity'? Yes, I do believe that OPD needs to be able to control a crime scene and any resulting crowds however the law proposed needs to be specific in this matter and not use vague descriptions and punitive actions against the innocent who are just minding their own business.
Posted by: W.I.N.G.S on Nov 18, 2008 at 04:12 PM
So, someone finally steps up to the plate and says something and its still being criticized. C'mon people, everybody is not going to be happy, but at least some steps are going to be made to combat this violent spirit. As someone well stated, it's not going to be just any crowd with five people, its going to be the rowdy, the young, the unlawful gatherings that will be effected most. Why? The police know where those gatherings are and who frequent those gatherings. Thats really who this thing was created for, and who it will be targeted at. So calm down people.
Posted by: Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Nebraska on Nov 18, 2008 at 04:01 PM
How is this idea any different than socialist ideas that you can only do what the government wants you to do? Why do we tolerate these kinds of restrictions on the freedom to associate? What if a large family plans to just hang out and look at the stars? How is that the business of ANY government? OPD is totally incompetent and not willing to tolerate openess and we are to just lock our doors and pretend nothing is happening? Give me a break! Please remove this elected official from 'his' position immediately. And, while at it, do get rid of the current structure of the OPD, as OPD is totally and uterly incompetent.
Posted by: To jenny on Nov 18, 2008 at 04:00 PM
And what's wrong with a properly handled gun? In countrys where it is mandatory for each citizen to carry a firearm, violent crime is far less than that in the United States, why? Because the criminals have to actually worry that a 80 year old woman might be packing more firepower than they do! And I find it laughable (and so do the criminals) that naive folks think that IF they don't have a gun, violence won't happen to them. Same type of idiot thinking says 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' which does little to make one feel safe/secure when the bad guys, who are kicking down your front door, happen to be armed to the teeth! And while I understand the 'they might take the gun away from you' argument, it still doesn't change the fact the victim IS in real danger and could lose their life regardless. If I am going to be a victim, I am going to make damn sure that the perpetrator is feeling my pain as well. And what better way to say 'GOTCHA" than with a bullet?
Posted by: To Jenny on Nov 18, 2008 at 03:44 PM
How about fathers and parenting??
Posted by: a on Nov 18, 2008 at 03:22 PM
Only 30 days for carrying a gun? How about 6 months? You can pass 100 laws, but until the prosecutors ask for heavy sentences and stop dropping charges to get plea bargains, nothing will change. You have a chance to vote out Judges every few years to send a message, but you fail to do so. Most of you would be outraged if you followed cases from start to finish, and watched the lack of prosecution. How does somone have 5 first offense dui's, or shopliftings changed to thefts to avoid charging them with a felony for being a habitual and sending them to prison? It's a big game of lets make a deal.
Posted by: Pat on Nov 18, 2008 at 03:20 PM
This is one of the dumbest laws i've ever heard of. So if some idiot calls the cops about a loud disturbance at my house at 1am, then they can come on my property and break up my party. I DONT THINK SO. they will get shot at just like an intruder. This law will never pass and is against my constitutional rights to assembly. SOrry lawmakers this one is going DOWN!!!!
Posted by: Lori on Nov 18, 2008 at 02:51 PM
You know, most of you need to go back and re-read the proposed ordinance: "A gathering...WHICH RESULTS IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR EXCESSIVE NOISE..is a nuisance." In other words, if you are not breaking bottles/urinating in someone's yard/screaming and yelling/throwing punches, etc you probably aren't considered a nuisance and the police will leave you alone. I would guess if you ARE causing a disturbance, regardless of the time of day or night, you'll be asked to leave and if you refuse and get belligerent, the police can arrest you. I don't see how this is any different than Lincoln, NE was 20 years ago when I was in college. Leave the bar at closing time or leave a party that the police had been called to and nothing happened; get loud-mouthed and belligerent and away you went.
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 18, 2008 at 02:36 PM
To Jenny: Not more guns...guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens trained in how to use them. LIke me.
Posted by: jenny on Nov 18, 2008 at 01:02 PM
A lot of critics hear - what are your solutions? Please don't say more guns.
Posted by: Chris on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
There are lawful annual demonstrations that do take place 24 hours a day. All someone would need to do is complain and Omaha will find itself in a constitutional argument and probably paying a hefty lawsuit. The Omaha city council would do good to read a book now and then.
Posted by: Brad on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Mr Welch- The Constitution gives us the right of free assembly. I can't wait until the supreme court nullifies your stupid idea.
Posted by: City Dweller on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM
This ordinance will prevent Omaha from becoming a city that never sleeps like other large cities that Omaha may compete with for business and pleasure options.
Posted by: Bill on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Come on people! This is Nebraska; home of the Teenager Safe Haven Law, the Learning Community, and other not-so-thought-out ideas. Good intentions thwarted by bad judgment. Our future state senators need political training somewhere. Why not in the Omaha City Council? Personal responsibility? Governmental accountability? Not in Nebraska. Why enforce existing laws when we can have new ones put into place? Learn well grasshoppers (or cornhuskers) and you may make the move to Washington to pass such great legislation of the 2008 bailout. As it is, the late shift work tea-toting temperance league will be under the same public meeting laws as the drunk, obnoxious unruly gun-toting north Omaha crowd. “Drop the tea bag and move away from the door!”
Posted by: Dave on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
So if I'm out for a night on the town with five friends and happen to be in the area of a reported disturbance I could potentially be arrested and charged even though I didn't do anything. Dan Welch might want to think before he speaks to ensure he doesn't say anything this stupid ever again. We have enough laws to address the issues at hand, the problem is not enough being done to enforce the laws. We need more police on the street. We need more public support of law enforcement. We need judges to hand out incredibly stiff sentences to those who commit violent crimes. What we don't need is Dan Welch.
Posted by: T on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Wow, apparently none of you people can read. It says gatherings of more than five people THAT RESULT IN criminal activity, excessive noise, or a disturbance. Try reading it before you criticize it.
Posted by: Proud To Be Mexican on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Just as long as they are consistant with gatherings in West Omaha and not looking for another excuse to bust us up in East Omaha. If you know what I mean.
Posted by: JD on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:39 AM
So basically, we have a right to assemble except after 1AM. That sounds nice and fascist.
Posted by: Steve on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Ok, I think this proposed law applis to the crowds that USUALLY gather at 30th & Ames after the bars close. People are high, drunk & have no sense to go home & sleep it off. Instead, they'd rather "hang out" & cause trouble. DUH ! ! ! This one's pretty easy to figure out, don't ya think ? ? ?
Posted by: Mike on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM
It's always the law abiding citizen who ends up on the 'short end of the stick' when politician's are under pressure "...to do something."
Posted by: HA! on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Don't you get it?! Mr. Welch is running for mayor and wants to be the first candidate to address our violent crime issues. It is a lame proposal and really doesn't address any of our crime (how can it impact 2-3 men gathering after midnight to rob and murder innocent citizens as we have seen recently) but it does help the police take control of the streets AFTER the crime has been committed. I also firmly believe it violates our RIGHTS to assemble unhindered and I agree with Ben Franklin (and Derek) that giving up our freedoms will not guarantee our safety nor OPD's. This proposal is all smoke and mirrors that won't address our violent crime (nor the criminals) and will be more than a casual civil rights inconvenience if allowed to pass as it is presented.
Posted by: RM on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM
It's already illegal to carry a concealed gun unless you have a permit. Why do we need more laws that will be ignored and unenforced or plea bargained away.
Posted by: No Aaron... on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
...but if you were in a large group, after 1am and a police officer asked you to disperse, and you refused to, then you could be arrested. The cops are not going to drive arround, notice a group of 6 walking and haul you all in. They will most likely ask you what your doing/where you're going. If you are just 'loitering' then you will most likely be asked to move it along.
Posted by: LLR on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I highly doubt a bunch of drunks standing outside a bar at closing time (1 am) or in the yard of someone's home partying in the wee hours constitutes a "right to assembly". And anyway, I do believe that's worded something about PEACEABLE assembly and a bunch of drunks at closing time are hardly peaceable. I totally agree with this.
Posted by: Aaron on Nov 18, 2008 at 09:57 AM
So if you were with a group of people after 1am but not causing any problems could you get arrested?
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 18, 2008 at 09:27 AM
This is lame. Thanks Mr. Welch for keeping with the City Council status quo of doing nothing that makes a difference.
Posted by: Jamie on Nov 18, 2008 at 09:15 AM
Aren't there already "Disturbing the peace" laws in place to assist them in brekaing up obnoxious parties and gatherings at 1:00 am?
Posted by: Derek on Nov 18, 2008 at 08:56 AM
This is getting ridiculous. Trying to outlaw gatherings on private property. Now I am not certain, but doesn't the constitution guarantee our right to assembly? I believe that is in the first amendment. Dan Welsch should be kicked off the board for even suggesting that. Now I do understand that bad things happen at night, but I for one am not up for giving away my rights for a little security. Benjamin Franklin says it best "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Dan Welsch should brush up on some history, because he sounds like an ignorant fool. He needs to realize that by trying to pass this law, he is saying "Omahans you are too stupid to look after yourselves so I am going to have the cops do it for you" I just wonder how many police officers like the suggestion, that gatherings after 1am will be illegal. Also, does this apply to cops that "gather" at headquarters. Does Welsch want them ticketed also?
Posted by: w on Nov 18, 2008 at 08:18 AM
I am sorry Mr. Brown but what do "lawful citizens" need to worry about? would "lawful citizens" deny a request to disperse or carry an illegal concealed weapon? I would think the only reason for being out at 1am would be a party and a party can always go somewhere else, like indoors if possible. I am just surprised that these weren't laws already.
Posted by: Lock Up on Nov 18, 2008 at 08:07 AM
Better yet, build more jail space and stop releasing violent felons after only half their minimum sentence is served! Keep them in until their entire max sentence is served, because previously convicted violent felons are the ones that do most of these crimes.
Posted by: Larry on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Have to start somewhere, but why not enforce existing laws, and why does it have to be 5 or more people and after 1:00am. No help for Memorial Park?
Posted by: Ryan on Nov 18, 2008 at 12:42 AM
The city council would do well to look at the Constitution of the United States, namely the First and Second Amendments. While incorporation of amendments has no bearing on cities and towns, the civil rights that the Bill of Rights protects should be considered when passing ordinances. Instead of creating new crimes, why not enforce the laws already on the books?
AP Online Network
YOU CAST - YOUR PICS N VIDEOS
Media Partners
 
Home - News - Weather - Sports - Jobs - Community - Pics N Videos - Station - Marketplace - 6 on Your Side - Contests - Get Connected - Blogs -
Health Check - Lottery - DTV - Seasonal - Mom to Mom - Traffic - The Omaha Buzz - CityCAMS - My Weather - School Closings - HS Cribs - Restaurants - McKnight Investigates -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - EEO Statement - FCC Form 388
Gray Television, Inc. - Copyright © 2002-2009 - Designed and Powered by Clickability