Council hears two ordinances: ‘proper lookout’ made an infraction; proposed local battery offense would be class B misdemeanor

Assistant City Attorney Matthew Griffin presented two related ordinance items to the council on Jan. 27. The first clarified the city’s existing 'duty to keep a proper lookout' language and proposed making that traffic offense an infraction to align it with comparable traffic violations. Griffin said the revision simplifies archaic wording and provides officers a tool to charge a lookout infraction when the officer did not personally observe a different moving violation but crash evidence or witness statements indicate fault.

The second ordinance would create a local battery offense, classified as a class B misdemeanor. Griffin said the change is intended to provide prosecutors and police a charging option for incidents that do not fit neatly into state assault or sexual battery statutes — for example, reported incidents where minors were kissed on the lips by adults without consent, or where people are inappropriately licked, grabbed or touched in non‑private areas but under circumstances that would alarm a reasonable person. Griffin and councilors debated the statutory language, including a 'reasonably likely to cause alarm' standard and how the local offense would interact with state law.

Councilors asked clarifying questions about likely penalties, how the local offense would intersect with state assault or sexual battery charges, and examples of incidents it is intended to cover. Griffin said comparable language appears in other Utah jurisdictions, including West Valley City, and that West Valley’s approach informed the draft.

No final vote on either ordinance was recorded in the portions of the meeting captured in the transcript; staff said the battery item would require more discussion.