Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Code Repeal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City council repeals outdated municipal disorderly‑conduct section after staff briefing

San Diego City Council · March 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council voted unanimously to repeal San Diego Municipal Code section 56.27 on disorderly conduct after staff said a federal preliminary injunction limits enforcement and park rangers can rely on other state and municipal tools.

The City Council unanimously approved an ordinance repealing San Diego Municipal Code section 56.27, a disorderly conduct provision staff said the courts have recently enjoined in litigation. Senior staff from Parks and Recreation and the San Diego Police Department explained to the council that a preliminary injunction in a pending case (Dorsett vs. City of San Diego) bars citywide enforcement of the section.

Michael Ruiz, chief park ranger for the Parks and Recreation Department, told the council the code section dates to early 20th‑century language that is no longer suitable for modern enforcement and that rangers and SDPD have other tools — including state law and other municipal code sections — to address conduct in parks and open space.

Council Member Von Wilpert moved to adopt staff recommendations, saying the council should balance free‑speech considerations with public safety and find a “balanced way of allowing people to express themselves” without jeopardizing rights or safety. Council Member Elo Rivera seconded the motion. The roll call showed the item passed unanimously, 9–0.

The repeal removes section 56.27 from the municipal code; staff said the city will rely on existing state law and other local code sections to address conduct in parks and public spaces going forward.

The item drew brief public comment asking for clarity on which enforcement bodies will lead follow‑up actions and the city committed to answer procedural questions in follow up.