Sean Lahman and Brian Sharp | Democrat and Chronicle

Tina MacIntyre-Yee, @tyee23

Monroe County Executive Cheryl Dinolfo signed an "anti-annoyance" bill into law hours after protesters took to the streets Monday in opposition to the measure.

More than three dozen speakers blasted the proposal during a hearing before the Monroe County Legislature earlier in the afternoon.

County spokesman Jesse Sleezer confirmed that Dinolfo signed the bill.

The law is called "Prohibited harassment of a police officer, peace officer, or first responder in Monroe County." It codifies the anti-harassment statute, which includes a sentence of up to a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.

None of the Republican lawmakers who voted for the bill attended the hearing, but two Democratic legislators rose to voice their opposition, as did a number of local elected officials.

Many of them, including Ernest Flagler-Mitchell, said the measure would undo many of the gains that have been made in the tense relationship between police and members of the community.

{{props.notification}} {{props.tag}} {{props.expression}} {{props.linkSubscribe.text}} {{#modules.acquisition.inline}}{{/modules.acquisition.inline}} ... Our reporting. Your stories. Get unlimited digital access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now

"This bill is embarrassing," he said. "It's offensive to everybody in this room and in this community."

Tina MacIntyre-Yee/ Democrat and Chronicle

William Moehle, Brighton Town Supervisor, said the bill was fatally flawed and creates bad policy. He criticized lawmakers for drafting and voting on the legislation without reaching out to leaders of local police departments for their views.

Rochester City Council Vice President Willie Lightfoot said the legislation "has racist overtones, is inequitable, and shows poor leadership." He said that City Council was drafting a letter in opposition. City spokesperson Justin Roj said Mayor Lovely Warren opposed the bill.

Danielle Ponder, a former public defender, said police are already using disorderly conduct charges in an overreaching way against young people of color.

"The last thing we need to do is to criminalize the consequences of normal human emotion," she said.

The Legislature passed the bill criminalizing the "annoyance" or harassment of police and emergency responders on Nov. 12. The bill passed on a party-line vote — supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

Opposition from legal community

Tina MacIntyre-Yee/ Democrat and Chronicle

In a letter to Dinolfo and other elected leaders, a cadre of local lawyers wrote that the measure was unconstitutionally vague, overly broad in its potential to prohibit certain conduct, and violates the First Amendment. Not only would an arrest not hold up, they wrote, but the person could sue for damages.

The letter is signed by Elliot Shields, Rhian Jones, Mark Foti, Jessica Naclerio, Brian Shiffrin, Christopher Thomas and Donald Thompson.

“This law will enhance tension, and provide officers who are particularly sensitive with a tool to punish those who bother them,” they wrote. Further, they argued, it is likely to be disproportionately applied in low-income and predominately minority neighborhoods and further distrust of police “as they have carte blanche to stop anyone for any behavior they subjectively consider ‘annoying.’”

The letter cited case law that made it likely the legislation would be upheld by the courts, but it warned of the chilling effect such a law was likely to have on the streets.

“Suburban residents are rarely if ever stopped for riding a bicycle without a bell, failing to signal a turn more than 100 feet before turning, having items dangling from rearview mirrors, walking in the street when the sidewalk is available, and various other offenses that city residents, often young black men, are stopped for every day. This will be yet another offense that further increases the perception and reality that we have two types of policing in our community — one for suburbanites and white residents, and another for city residents and people of color.”

Speaking at the hearing Friday, Foti expressed his concern that lawmakers had not examined the case law that challenges the constitutionality of the law and said he suspects the bill was being passed in bad faith.

Tina MacIntyre-Yee/Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

What does the law say?

The legislation would criminalize behavior that “intends to annoy, alarm or threaten the personal safety” of a police officer, peace officer or first responder who is performing official duties.

The person engaging in this behavior must know, or reasonably should know, that the person being bothered is a police officer, peace officer or first responder.

The term “peace officer,” under state law, includes sheriffs and their deputies and certain state investigators. First responders are not defined in the law, though the category could include professional and volunteer firefighters and emergency medical workers.

SLAHMAN@Gannett.com

BDSHARP@Gannett.com