Fort Bend County's mask order may be a "paper tiger," after all
 |
|
Fort Bend County Judge KP George gives a television interview. He issued a mask mandate last week requiring businesses to enforce mask wearing in stores or face fines. (Photo credit KPRC 2 Houston screengrab)
|
The declaration of “Local Disaster for Public Health Emergency” and the county judge’s order “regarding use of facial protection in commercial establishment to slow the continued rapid spread of Covid-19 in Fort Bend County,” a week after its enactment, still remains on paper.
And the order is likely to remain a paper tiger in the weeks to come because there is no consensus among law enforcement agencies on enforcing the order.
No law enforcement agency has yet issued a citation to any commercial establishment for violating this order so far.
In a handful of rare instances of complaint, the law enforcement has been able to obtain compliance by the business and no citation was necessary.
The county judge’s mask mandate, in lieu of an appeal for voluntary compliance, has given raise to a controversy dividing the community, pitting supporters of the mask mandate against those who prefer voluntary compliance.
This reporter inquired with various local law enforcement agencies and asked if that agency is enforcing the order, if there are spot checks for violations, has any complaint been received and any citations issue.
Mostly the answer is no, though some gave a similar answer with a little variation.
“The answer to all the questions is “No’ or “None,” according to a spokesperson for the Missouri City Police Department.
“That being said, we do occasionally have people report another citizen was observed not wearing a face covering, but this has been taking place for more than a month,” the spokesperson said.
The MCPD is said to be following the guidance of the Fort Bend County District Attorney.
“The district attorney has made it very clear the wearing or not wearing of a mask in a business per the most recent Judge’s order and Mayor’s order is not a law enforcement issue. Any violation of the most recent mask order at a business is to be handled between the business and the visitor/customer,”
according to the MCPD.
City of Sugar Land spokesman Doug Adolph said: “We are working closely with businesses to ensure an understanding of mask order requirements. Citizens who have concerns should contact 311, and Code Enforcement will investigate. We are also conducting spot checks and looking for violations as part of our normal operations. Yes, we’ve received complaints, and follow up investigations have occurred. We have found violations, but so far have been able to gain voluntary compliance, so no citations have been necessary yet.”
Both Sugar land and Missouri City mayors have issued their orders, in addition to the county judge’s order.
Chad Norvell from the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office said, “We will enforce it, if necessary.”
“If a business absolutely refused to adhere to the order, a citation would only be written after extensive dialogue with the business owner. We feel we can gain compliance by having a conversation with the owner,” Norvell said.
However, sheriff’s deputies are “not actively” doing spot checks for violations, he said.
“People often call because they saw someone in a given store not wearing a mask. They do not know if that individual has a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a mask. We have not found any businesses refusing to require customers wear a mask and no citation has been issued for violation of the mask order,” Norvell said.
Fort Bend County DA Brian Middleton explained his position, thus: “What I stated was the Governor's Executive Order determined that no individual can face civil or criminal penalties for failure to wear a face covering. Therefore, compelling individuals to put on a mask is not a law enforcement matter. Refusal by customer to leave after refusal of service by a business due to a customer's failure to wear a face covering may be considered criminal trespass.”
In other words, the Dadoes not want law enforcement spend their time enforcing the mask order, instead of attending to other and law and order issues and crime prevention.
Middleton also felt that the Governor’s order was more restrictive and implementing that order is more cumbersome. When complying with the County's Order, businesses will have the option to refuse service but can’t make anyone wear a mask. Governor's order includes closures and occupancy limits, Middleton said.
This paper had reported earlier that the county judge was exploring the possibility of hiring code enforcers to function as mask police.
A spokesman for the county judge, neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of hiring code enforcers, but said, “We have great law enforcement partnerships throughout the county.”
Asked why the county judge should extend the order next week because the governor has already enacted more restrictive order, the spokesman said, “The governor’s new executive order does not address facial coverings in commercial establishments.”
County Attorney Roy Cordes Which agency is expetced to enforce the county judge’s facial covering order? Any law enforcement agency with jurisdiction.
Are law enforcement agencies stautorily required to implement the order? All law enforcement agencies and officers have the authority to enforce laws and take complaints within their jurisdiction.
Are they required to take cognizanse of the order automatically once it is signed? All law enforcement agencies and officers have the authority to enforce laws and take complaints within their jurisdiction.
Asked if the county can outsource the job of code enforcement to a contractor if law enforcement officials decline to enforce the order, County Attorney Roy Cordes said, “The County has the option under Health & Safety Code 121.003(c) in certain circumstances to train and grant to an employee the power to issue a citation.”
Asked if law enforcement agencies have to automatically take cognizance of the order and implement it, Cordes said, “All law enforcement agencies and officers have the authority to enforce the laws and take complaints within their jurisdiction.”
While announcing the commercial establishments’ facial coverings order, Fort Bend County’s Office of Emergency Management Coordinator Mark Flathouse was asked how he would enforce the order.
Flathouse’s answer was that he and his staff would spend a couple of days communicating with the businesses and explaining them the order.
Count Judge KP George clarified that intention of the order was not to punish anybody and he was confident that the county residents would comply with the order.
Incidentally, a close reading of the order shows that the fine “may” be imposed and not “shall” be imposed. “Failure of the commercial entity to comply with the requirements of this Order may result in a fine not to exceed $500.00 for each violation.”
Both the governor’s order and the county judge’s order encourage face coverings. But, grocery chains wanted legal authority for their face cover policies and George took their demand seriously.
Knowing fully well that a citizen cannot be forced to wear a mask and listening to one influential section of the businesses, George implemented the order.
George also took his decision unilaterally, instead of making it a bipartisan approach.
The end result: The mandate has split the community, proponents of the mask mandate versus supporters of voluntary mask compliance.
And the order is likely to remain a paper tiger in the weeks to come because there is no consensus among law enforcement agencies on enforcing the order.
No law enforcement agency has yet issued a citation to any commercial establishment for violating this order so far.
In a handful of rare instances of complaint, the law enforcement has been able to obtain compliance by the business and no citation was necessary.
The county judge’s mask mandate, in lieu of an appeal for voluntary compliance, has given raise to a controversy dividing the community, pitting supporters of the mask mandate against those who prefer voluntary compliance.
This reporter inquired with various local law enforcement agencies and asked if that agency is enforcing the order, if there are spot checks for violations, has any complaint been received and any citations issue.
Mostly the answer is no, though some gave a similar answer with a little variation.
“The answer to all the questions is “No’ or “None,” according to a spokesperson for the Missouri City Police Department.
“That being said, we do occasionally have people report another citizen was observed not wearing a face covering, but this has been taking place for more than a month,” the spokesperson said.
The MCPD is said to be following the guidance of the Fort Bend County District Attorney.
“The district attorney has made it very clear the wearing or not wearing of a mask in a business per the most recent Judge’s order and Mayor’s order is not a law enforcement issue. Any violation of the most recent mask order at a business is to be handled between the business and the visitor/customer,”
according to the MCPD.
City of Sugar Land spokesman Doug Adolph said: “We are working closely with businesses to ensure an understanding of mask order requirements. Citizens who have concerns should contact 311, and Code Enforcement will investigate. We are also conducting spot checks and looking for violations as part of our normal operations. Yes, we’ve received complaints, and follow up investigations have occurred. We have found violations, but so far have been able to gain voluntary compliance, so no citations have been necessary yet.”
Both Sugar land and Missouri City mayors have issued their orders, in addition to the county judge’s order.
Chad Norvell from the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office said, “We will enforce it, if necessary.”
“If a business absolutely refused to adhere to the order, a citation would only be written after extensive dialogue with the business owner. We feel we can gain compliance by having a conversation with the owner,” Norvell said.
However, sheriff’s deputies are “not actively” doing spot checks for violations, he said.
“People often call because they saw someone in a given store not wearing a mask. They do not know if that individual has a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a mask. We have not found any businesses refusing to require customers wear a mask and no citation has been issued for violation of the mask order,” Norvell said.
Fort Bend County DA Brian Middleton explained his position, thus: “What I stated was the Governor's Executive Order determined that no individual can face civil or criminal penalties for failure to wear a face covering. Therefore, compelling individuals to put on a mask is not a law enforcement matter. Refusal by customer to leave after refusal of service by a business due to a customer's failure to wear a face covering may be considered criminal trespass.”
In other words, the Dadoes not want law enforcement spend their time enforcing the mask order, instead of attending to other and law and order issues and crime prevention.
Middleton also felt that the Governor’s order was more restrictive and implementing that order is more cumbersome. When complying with the County's Order, businesses will have the option to refuse service but can’t make anyone wear a mask. Governor's order includes closures and occupancy limits, Middleton said.
This paper had reported earlier that the county judge was exploring the possibility of hiring code enforcers to function as mask police.
A spokesman for the county judge, neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of hiring code enforcers, but said, “We have great law enforcement partnerships throughout the county.”
Asked why the county judge should extend the order next week because the governor has already enacted more restrictive order, the spokesman said, “The governor’s new executive order does not address facial coverings in commercial establishments.”
County Attorney Roy Cordes Which agency is expetced to enforce the county judge’s facial covering order? Any law enforcement agency with jurisdiction.
Are law enforcement agencies stautorily required to implement the order? All law enforcement agencies and officers have the authority to enforce laws and take complaints within their jurisdiction.
Are they required to take cognizanse of the order automatically once it is signed? All law enforcement agencies and officers have the authority to enforce laws and take complaints within their jurisdiction.
Asked if the county can outsource the job of code enforcement to a contractor if law enforcement officials decline to enforce the order, County Attorney Roy Cordes said, “The County has the option under Health & Safety Code 121.003(c) in certain circumstances to train and grant to an employee the power to issue a citation.”
Asked if law enforcement agencies have to automatically take cognizance of the order and implement it, Cordes said, “All law enforcement agencies and officers have the authority to enforce the laws and take complaints within their jurisdiction.”
While announcing the commercial establishments’ facial coverings order, Fort Bend County’s Office of Emergency Management Coordinator Mark Flathouse was asked how he would enforce the order.
Flathouse’s answer was that he and his staff would spend a couple of days communicating with the businesses and explaining them the order.
Count Judge KP George clarified that intention of the order was not to punish anybody and he was confident that the county residents would comply with the order.
Incidentally, a close reading of the order shows that the fine “may” be imposed and not “shall” be imposed. “Failure of the commercial entity to comply with the requirements of this Order may result in a fine not to exceed $500.00 for each violation.”
Both the governor’s order and the county judge’s order encourage face coverings. But, grocery chains wanted legal authority for their face cover policies and George took their demand seriously.
Knowing fully well that a citizen cannot be forced to wear a mask and listening to one influential section of the businesses, George implemented the order.
George also took his decision unilaterally, instead of making it a bipartisan approach.
The end result: The mandate has split the community, proponents of the mask mandate versus supporters of voluntary mask compliance.