SAN ANGELO, TX — San Angelo officials have clarified exemptions to an emergency order restricting overnight access to flood-damaged areas, allowing rideshare drivers, delivery services, home healthcare providers and essential travel for residents to continue moving through certain zones despite the curfew.
The updated guidance, announced Wednesday night, specifies that travel along major through streets such as Bell Street, Chadbourne Street and Armstrong Street will remain open, along with the TxDOT-approved detour for Houston Harte. Essential trips, including commuting to and from work, medical visits or emergencies, are also exempt.
“This will apply to the nighttime hours as residents can already come and go during the day,” city officials said in an update.
The overnight order, in effect from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily, was issued in response to reports of looting in flood-impacted neighborhoods. Police Chief Travis Griffith said officers had received “many reports” of individuals taking belongings from damaged properties and emphasized the goal is to limit traffic and help law enforcement identify who belongs in the affected zones.
“With this order, we’re creating a restricted zone with some time frames,” Griffith said in a video posted to the city’s and police department’s Facebook pages. “At eight tonight, we’re asking homeowners, renters, residents of any kind, that they remain on their property during that time frame, unless you’ve been condemned with a red X on your property.”
Mayor Tom Thompson said the city enacted the order because of “excessive looting scavengers” who have been “walking off with people’s stuff” and “cutting bags open,” adding that officials previously had “no tool to enforce” restrictions in the flooded areas.
Officials stressed the order isn’t aimed at penalizing residents coming home late from work.
“If you work until 3 a.m. and are returning to your residence located in this area, this doesn’t mean police are going to arrest you,” Thompson said, adding that officers “will use discretion.”
Violations of the order are a Class C misdemeanor carrying a $1,000 fine, though Griffith said officers prefer voluntary compliance over enforcement.
“We just have too many people going around stealing stuff, and we don’t want that,” Griffith said. “We want you to know that we care about you guys, and we’re praying for everyone that’s affected.”
City officials said the restricted zones are outlined in “Exhibit A” of the ordinance, and the order will remain in effect until local authorities determine it is no longer necessary.
"The restricted area has been deemed hazardous to the safety of individuals, or access would impede law enforcement and safety operations in the area," information from the city states. "In addition, this will help address criminal activity in the area. Access in or out of the area will be at the discretion of the San Angelo Police Department."
View the updated map that includes the exemptions (PDF) by clicking HERE.
Visit sanangelo.gov/July4 for more information the flood relief efforts.
A map of the restricted areas (in orange)
Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily
Required
Comments
Listed By: Wiley Coyote
When do we quit calling them democrats or do we.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkIt would take a real lowlife POS to sneak around and steal from families that have had their lives turned upside down and many of them have already lost so much. I suppose a lowlife like that must come from a family of lowlifes.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkListed By: G.L. Mann
So does this mean homeowners can use Deadly Force to protect their property?
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
- Log in or register to post comments
PermalinkPost a comment to this article here: