Question of the Day - 24 January 2024

Yesterday, we listed objections to Clark County’s recently enacted anti-loitering rules. Today, we delve deeper into the official rationale.

Clark County’s new statute leans heavily on research conducted by UNLV criminologist and Director of the Center for Crime and Justice Policy Dr. William H. Sousa. In a report commissioned by the county, he cites “perceptions of disorder” on the Strip, “major crowd events,” “unhoused youth,” and “violence-prevention efforts in Las Vegas neighborhoods.” 

Writes Prof. Sousa, “Calls for service for disorder-related events on Las Vegas Boulevard increased 23% between 2018 and 2022,” with a disproportionate number taking place on pedestrian bridges. “Other studies demonstrate that relatively little disorder, if left unchecked, can generate more disorder. This is because serious offenders are generally more comfortable in places where acts of disorder are common and appear to be acceptable.”

Particularly vexatious, Sousa says, are “captive-audience” situations. As examples, he cites bus stops, train platforms, subway cars … though not, we note, pedestrian bridges. He enumerates “disorders” on the Strip as “aggressive panhandlers, solicitation while intoxicated, aggressive street performers, illegal vendors, confidence games (i.e., three-card monte), and drug-related activity.”

The professor called bridge-level activity “especially problematic,” due to the creation of obstructions and in some cases outright traffic stoppages.

Why is this worse on a bridge than at-grade?

“If pedestrians want to safely cross Las Vegas Boulevard, they have little choice but to use the overpasses. Once they are on a bridge, they are essentially confined to a restricted space with no way to leave other than the point that they entered and the exit point on the opposite side.” This, Sousa argues, makes pedestrians “particularly vulnerable” at bridge level. 

Upping the ante, Sousa raises the issue of “times of panic.” Activity on the bridges “creates a heightened risk of injury should an incident occur that triggers rapid group movement in one direction. … An escalator further complicates matters in the event of an emergency on a pedestrian overpass.” All of the above issues, he concludes, make it harder for first responders to get to an incident, if needed.

Additional specters invoked are “groping, pickpocketing, and other forms of theft … particularly if alcohol or drugs are involved.”

Thus, endorsing the idea of a “local ordinance that prohibits stopping” of any kind facilitates the desired policy of “encouraging people to keep moving on the overpasses, discouraging people from stopping or congregating on the bridges, and managing any disorderly conditions that may cause people to stop.”

It's not enough, Sousa argues, to prohibit “obstruction.” Stopping itself must be outlawed. He defines even seemingly innocent stopping as a bad thing: “Those who are stopped, even if they are not intentionally obstructing others, may encourage other pedestrians to stop.”

If you like, you can read the full five-page text of the ordinance here. (We couldn't help being amused by the initial statement: “The pedestrian bridges located within the world-famous Las Vegas Strip …” Even when passing a law, Clark County can’t avoid congratulating itself.) 

Most of the rationale in the text of the law parrots the Sousa report’s verbiage, so there’s little need to belabor it. The kicker is that those flouting the law are to be sentenced to as much as six months in the county jail and/or fined up to $1,000. 

Now it becomes a question of whether the constitutionality of this no-stopping ordinance can be upheld. We’re not aware of any pending cases in the matter. Yet. An inciting incident seems highly likely to arise sooner or later.