Council hears first reading of ordinance making bypassing security checkpoints an offense; members question who can be exempt

The Decatur City Council conducted a first reading of an ordinance that would make bypassing designated security checkpoints a standalone offense and discussed how authority and enforcement would work.

A staff presenter explained the ordinance’s purpose: after conversations with police and other cities, a standalone code section was drafted to make evading a security screening a discrete violation that is easier to enforce and to prosecute than relying on trespass law alone. The draft specifies three ways to violate the section: ignoring or disobeying a security person’s instruction, avoiding the checkpoint altogether, or assisting someone to bypass screening. The penalty range was described as the catch‑all for section 16: up to a $500 fine and up to 180 days in jail, with actual sanction left to judicial discretion.

Council members pressed staff on who would be considered “authorized” to bypass a checkpoint. A council member asked explicitly whether elected officials or employees could be exempt and how authorization would be assigned. Staff responded that the authorization would rest with the controller of the secured area — for example, a stadium’s governing body, a private business owner or the manager of a city facility — and that day‑to‑day operational decisions about access are typically made by the facility manager or mayoral operations, not by an ordinance. The presenter said on private property the owner determines authorization, and on city facilities the manager or appropriate designee would set access policies.

Members raised concerns about consistency and fairness if some people (employees, officials) routinely bypass checkpoints while others could be prosecuted for doing the same. Staff said those questions were operational and would be handled by policy decisions at the facility level rather than by trying to enumerate every authorized class in ordinance text.

The item was presented as a reading; the council did not adopt the ordinance during the session. Staff indicated further policy work and implementation planning would be needed to clarify how authorizations are granted and communicated to the public and to enforcement officers.