Proposal would lower the threshold to expel repeat offenders from downtown and along Ashland Street, east to Exit 14

By Damian Mann for Ashland.news

Ashland Police Chief Tighe O’Meara asked the City Council Monday night to allow officers greater flexibility to expel individuals responsible for “negative behavior” from business areas.

“We’re trying to give the officers a tool to best react to those unlawful behaviors,” O’Meara said.

At the council’s study session, two councilors were skeptical of O’Meara’s proposal, but most seemed supportive. The new rules could come back at a council business meeting in two weeks for a vote.

Under current rules, officers who seek to exclude people, primarily the homeless, must first wait until the Municipal Court judge finds the person violated the law.

Weeks, months or even a year could pass before the case is resolved, O’Meara said.

Meanwhile, additional unlawful behavior might continue in the city’s two Enhanced Law Enforcement Areas, one in the downtown, created in 2012, and the other in the Ashland Street business corridor, created in January. 

Following the “Medford model,” which has survived court challenges, O’Meara proposed a variation on a more streamlined process that would allow an officer to directly expel someone based on a single violation.

Medford has exclusion zones in its downtown, parks and along the Bear Creek Greenway. O’Meara proposed a more middle-of-the-road approach than the Medford process that would require an officer to first seek approval of the expulsion of an individual through the Municipal Court.

The proposed types of qualifying violations that would trigger an expulsion in Ashland include drinking in public, open container in public, smoking cannabis in public, not controlling a dog, scattering rubbish (including bodily excrement), or unnecessary noise. Prohibited camping or the lack of a dog license wouldn’t prompt an expulsion.

Other reasons for expulsion would include a person who has been charged with two or more misdemeanor crimes within six months, such as trespassing or minor theft. Unauthorized burning or a crime against a person, such as an assault or felony, would also lead to expulsion.

O’Meara said if a person were excluded from one of the zones, that person could still move through the area to go to a doctor’s office, for instance. Those who have received notice that they are being expelled have 10 days from the time they receive the notice to comply or file an appeal, O’Meara said.

He said the officers know the behavior of many of the homeless and are familiar with chronic negative behavior.

O’Meara cited several instances where the enhanced ability of officers to exclude individuals would result in outcomes that deter further unlawful activity. In one case, someone identified as “Person A” would have avoided 10 fewer actions if they had been expelled from the downtown after an arrest in February 2024.

Councilor Bob Kaplan seemed skeptical that the exclusion zones and expulsions are just moving the problem from one part of the city to another. He said he was puzzled whether the exclusion zones have even been successful so far, citing insufficient data provided to the council.

“It’s not as good as it should be,” he said. “I’m a little concerned about that.”

He urged O’Meara to provide more evidence to support his request. O’Meara responded, “The downtown has been a success,” while also saying there is room for improvement.

“I expect, councilor, that you and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this,” O’Meara responded to Kaplan. “You’re choosing not to see the data the way I or other people see the data.”

Although the exclusion zones could solve the problem completely, O’Meara agreed it probably can’t in all cases.

“If we expel somebody from an ELEA (exclusion zone), have we solved the problem? No, but we have solved one problem,” he said. “There’s a person in Talent now (referring to a homeless person who had been excluded). Has the problem gone away — no.” At the same time, O’Meara said, “I don’t have any illusion that this is a magic wand to cure all ills.”

Councilor Gina DuQuenne said an explanation needs to be provided to the homeless about how to go about appealing.

“What is the cost for the appeal and what is the process?” she said.

City Attorney Johan Pietila said there would be no cost to appeal.

Councilor Jeff Dahle said many misconceptions are circulating in the community about the denial of due process. He wondered if there had been sufficient analysis of the constitutionality of the proposal.

Pietila said the city has analyzed this proposal in depth, and language about the new exclusion zones rules was provided to the Municipal Court judge.

“We looked at this in depth,” he said. “I feel good about it.”

He said Medford already went through a number of legal challenges regarding its exclusion zone rules.

Rich Rohde, an Ashland homeless advocate, urged the council to reject the new exclusion zone rules and to get rid of the exclusion zones entirely.

“This will destroy the trust you have with the people by targeting the homeless,” he said.

Ashland resident Linda Adams said, “This is a convoluted law that criminalizes homelessness.”

All the councilors, except Kaplan, agreed to bring O’Meara’s proposal back for a vote in the next couple of weeks.

Reach freelance writer Damian Mann at [email protected].

Related stories:

City Council approves parks fee, discusses Enhanced Law Enforcement Area rule changes (May 22, 2025)

Ashland City Council considers changes to enhanced law enforcement area (Feb. 21, 2025)

Ashland to have a second enhanced law enforcement area — and reopened Community Center (Dec. 19, 2024)

Ashland police: Added Enhanced Law Enforcement Area is a useful tool (Dec. 16, 2024)

Ashland City Council to vote on second reading of Enhanced Law Enforcement Area ordinance (Dec. 15, 2024)

Ashland City Council approves expulsion area for south side of town along Ashland Street (Dec. 6. 2024)

Ashland City Council balks at potential expulsion zone changes (Nov. 22, 2024)