Dear Editor,
The City of Fostoria is attempting to violate constitutional rights once again. A proposed ordinance scheduled for its third and final reading on June 17 would grant unchecked authority to the Safety Services Director and other officials to control access to city buildings and property without providing any clear legal standards, due process protections, or accountability. This comes after the city was previously called out in local newspapers for posting unconstitutional signs prohibiting recording and photography in public buildings—signs that were only taken down after public exposure, despite nearly a year of my personal efforts warning the mayor and other officials. Now, on the anniversary of the Fourteenth Amendment being passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, the city is pushing forward with yet another attempt to suppress rights the Constitution was written to protect.
Below are excerpts from the proposed ordinance, followed by a detailed breakdown of how each section violates the U.S. Constitution. This analysis highlights serious civil rights concerns that demand public attention.
Please bring back constitutional rights to Fostoria!
Section 109.02(a)
“No person shall enter or remain on any city-owned, controlled, or leased property without the consent of the Safety Services Director or his/her designee.”
Violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. It gives a single official unchecked power to decide who may enter public property without any standards, criteria, notice, or appeal process. This denies fair procedure and invites arbitrary exclusion.
—
Section 109.02(b)
“No person shall record or photograph on or within any city-owned, controlled or leased property without the prior consent of the Safety Services Director or his/her designee.”
Violates the First Amendment as prior restraint. Public photography and recording in publicly accessible areas are protected expressive activities. Requiring prior permission is an unconstitutional restriction on speech and press rights.
—
Section 109.02(c)
“Violators may be subject to removal and/or criminal trespass charges as defined in the Ohio Revised Code.”
Violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The ordinance criminalizes constitutionally protected activity and imposes penalties without due process — no notice, no hearing, no appeal, and no clarity about legal thresholds.
—
Section 109.02(d)
“City officials may request identification or reason for presence on city property.”
Violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the First Amendment right to anonymous public engagement. Citizens cannot be forced to disclose identity or purpose to access public buildings unless under reasonable suspicion or lawful necessity. Compelling answers to government questioning also violates the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.
—
Section 109.02(e)
“The Safety Services Director or his/her designee shall determine hours of access and may restrict access for operational needs.”
Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This grants vague, discretionary power to restrict access without notice, policy, or legal standards. It enables arbitrary, viewpoint-based denial of access and retaliation against dissenters.
—
Section 109.02(f)
“Any person who refuses to comply with a lawful directive to leave may be removed or prosecuted.”
Violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. When such “directives” are issued in retaliation for protected conduct or without lawful basis, it constitutes abuse of authority. Without clear limits, this section enables unconstitutional enforcement against peaceful dissent.
—
Section 109.02(g)
“This ordinance does not limit the city from enforcing any other ordinance or regulation.”
Violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s fair notice requirement. This vague catch-all clause fails to notify the public of specific rules or standards, allowing hidden or arbitrary enforcement. It compounds the ordinance’s overall due process violations.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!