Hagerstown staff recommend cleaning up outdated loitering language; nuisance-abatement process explained

City staff and the police department reviewed two city-code topics at the Aug. 12 work session: Chapter 142 (loitering) and Chapter 185 (nuisance abatement, commonly called the weeds/trash/debris ordinance). Staff framed the loitering review as part of a broader code-cleanup effort and described portions of Chapter 142 that the city does not enforce because they were previously determined to be unconstitutional.

Loitering (Chapter 142): A police representative summarized the ordinance’s current language, noting the provision that prohibits standing or loitering within 50 feet of retail establishments that sell alcoholic beverages was determined by city legal counsel to be unconstitutional and is not enforced; staff recommended that the city amend the code to remove that obsolete section. The speaker noted that the loitering ordinance is otherwise rarely enforced on its own because courts and the state have found broadly worded loitering laws to be vague; instead, officers generally rely on other crimes (trespass, disorderly conduct, obstruction) if enforcement action is needed. The police presenter said there had been no loitering arrests in the last five years (search period reviewed) and that trespass signs are an effective, enforceable tool for private-property and business owners.

Nuisance abatement (Chapter 185): City staff explained the three-tier notice timeline that is currently in the city code: for weeds the initial notice is seven days, a second violation in the same calendar year reduces the compliance period to five days, and a third or subsequent violation in a calendar year reduces the compliance period to one day. Trash-only violations can begin with a five-day notice; set-outs blocking sidewalks are treated as a one-day abatement for public-health and safety reasons. If property owners fail to comply, the city will abate the nuisance (mow, remove trash) and bill the owner for costs plus a $100 admin fee and a $20 technology fee. Unpaid bills may be sent to collections or filed as a lien on the property; repeated violations can trigger fines (the code cites a maximum $500 fine and up to 90 days incarceration as court penalties, though courts consider indigence and common practice is to use fines and alternatives proportionally).

Staff noted that the public reporting system accepts anonymous reports and allows inspectors to respond; staff also described limits on enforcement (inspectors may only observe from public right-of-way unless invited onto private property) and noted that consistency in discretionary enforcement is a goal of training and internal guidance. Staff recommended legal review to remove or amend outdated loitering language (including the 50-foot alcohol-adjacent provision) and to update the code text for clarity and constitutionality. Council members asked for more public-facing explanatory material (PSA) clarifying what residents can and cannot be cited for and how to report issues.

Provenance: The loitering and nuisance-abatement discussions are on the Aug. 12 meeting transcript and staff said they will pursue legal review and return cleaned-up ordinance language for council action.