Davis Municipal Code Chapter 26


26.01.010 Annoying persons on streets, etc.

No person shall in any public place be guilty of conduct annoying to persons passing or being upon the streets or public grounds or upon adjacent premises. (Code 1964, § 7-8.106.)

Update: This code section was "Repealed by 2357". Annoying people everywhere rejoiced, and the last remnants of civility fled the City of Davis. The code section has been memorialized by a touching eulogy.


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2005-08-15 15:44:54   golden! —JackHaskel

2005-10-01 13:48:14   Amazing! What's the penalty for this? Is it enforced? Can I make a citizen's arrest of anyone who annoys me in a public place? —BarnabasTruman

2006-02-19 18:41:47   This sounds great for those shouting "Christians" on the Quad... —MatthewTom

2006-02-19 18:58:45   The Quad isn't inside the city limits. —JasonAller

2007-06-03 18:51:09   Santa Cruz has an interesting panhandling ordinance. —JasonAller

2008-05-12 01:32:24   If there was federal law regarding this, I'd have been executed years ago. —thelonepiper555

2010-02-01 23:49:33   This code section is actually downright unconstitutional, as it parallels almost exactly an ordinance turned over by the Supreme Court in Coates v. Cincinnati. You don't have standing to challenge it unless it's applied against you, though, and I doubt any Davis officers are going to be enforcing it. So, it may well float on in Davis's Municipal Code as an ode to hilarity for all eternity! —TomGarberson

  • Any chance of tracking down the author and people who voted that into place and charging them with malpractice? —JasonAller
    • Haha not really, no. But if you ask me, it's a pretty amusing law to have on the books, so long as they don't try to enforce it against anyone. That vaguely totalitarian flavor is so out of character with Davis, but because it's so quirky, it seems to fit right in. -tg

2010-04-08 18:28:58   It seems that many people are misreading this as though a person can be guilty of being annoying rather than what this says where "no person shall ... be guilty." —E.C.H.

  • You're correct that it's facially somewhat ambiguous. Contextually, however, it isn't: "conduct annoying to persons..." isn't illegal absent this section, so there's nothing of which people can be guilty without the code. Plus, if you have a look at Municipal Code Chapter 26, you'll note that this section, "Annoying persons on streets, etc.," is one of the specifically enumerated "Offenses—Miscellaneous" of Chapter 26. —TomGarberson

2010-10-19 23:33:30   Farewell, 26.01.010. You will be missed. —TomGarberson