Police across Monroe County say they will not enforce anti-annoyance law

Brian Sharp | Democrat and Chronicle

Show Caption Hide Caption Protesters: "Annoyance" bill will target minority communities Protesters worry the bill will target minority communities, limit First Amendment rights, and divide police community relations more.

Law enforcement agencies across Monroe County do not plan to enforce a controversial anti-annoyance law, officials said Wednesday.

That decision came two or three weeks ago, mutually agreed upon by the Monroe County Chiefs of Police Association, said Gates Police Chief Jim VanBrederode, who serves as the association president.

"We read it, and we all said 'no'," VanBrederode said.

Rochester Police Chief La'Ron Singletary notified his officers on Wednesday and issued a public statement. Monroe County Sheriff Todd Baxter's announcement came two hours later. Irondequoit Police Chief Richard Tantalo said he would be preparing a memo to his officers in short order.

Webster Police Chief Joseph Rieger said he was reviewing the matter.

"This is a solution to a problem that does not exist," Baxter said in the statement.

Only signed into law Monday

The Monroe County Legislature passed the measure along in a party-line vote last month. County Executive Cheryl Dinolfo signed the measure into law on Monday, hours after a public hearing at which critics derided the law as unconstitutional. Those opposed to the law claim it will not withstand a legal challenge but could, in the meantime, disproportionately impact city residents and people of color, while eroding relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Our subscribers make this coverage possible. Subscribe to the Democrat and Chronicle today at democratandchronicle.com/deal.

"This was either done with the best intentions or it was done for political reasons," said Rochester police Locust Club President Mike Mazzeo. "The fact that they did not reach out, get opinions, run it by different people is, I think, their initial problem."

It is a similar complaint he has voiced over the city's Police Accountability Board.

"At the end of the day it becomes political," he said. "Yet the people who have to go out on the street and work are never conferred with, or given the chance to voice their opinion. And I think that is wrong."

Singletary and Baxter said they would revisit the matter if, and when, it is validated by the courts.

The snub is another stumble in the closing days of Dinolfo's term. Last month, the Republican leader backed a failed effort to curtail the authority of the county executive before her Democratic successor Adam Bello took office. That measure was withdrawn amid public outcry.

In a news conference, Dinolfo spokesman Jesse Sleezer said the timing of the law enforcement response was unfortunate, arguing the matter was fully vetted, and "was a matter of public knowledge and public discussion for some time."

He said Legislator Karla Boyce, R-Mendon, as chairwoman of the Legislature's public safety committee, presented the measure to the Monroe County Law Enforcement Council, an entity established as a resource to county government and involving representatives of all the county's law enforcement agencies. However, VanBrederode said the topic was raised in concept only and that the legislation was never shared. Boyce did not immediately return a voicemail seeking comment.

As for Dinolfo, she personally spoke with many law enforcement officials, Sleezer said but declined to name them, and her sense was that the legislation had support.

"She fundamentally understands that the buck stops with her," Sleezer said of the fallout. "She has always taken on her role as county executive through that lens. .... I'm sure she feels she has done everything she could ... (and) that the intent behind this specific matter was good."

Proponents portrayed the law enforcement response as understandable, given how political the matter had become at a time of increased community scrutiny and tension surrounding police interactions. But police said it was more a matter of the new law being unnecessary.

"Upon the advice of the city's Corporation Counsel, members of the Rochester Police Department shall not make any arrests for violation of this law or take any other actions to enforce this law at present due to pending legal review," Singletary wrote to officers.

He added that he had discussed the matter with the union leadership as well and concluded it was in officers' best interest to not act on the law until the courts sort out the legality of the matter.

"It is our strong belief that first responders deserve the right to be protected while at work and should not expect to be harmed simply because of the commitment made to protect their communities," the chief wrote, adding that officers could utilize existing laws involving harassment and assault, should the need arise.

That leaves State Police, and while not commenting on the law specifically, spokesman Mark O'Donnell said it would be "business as usual" for troopers.

What the law says

The "Prohibited harassment of a police officer, peace officer, or first responder in Monroe County" law criminalizes 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.

Any violation carries a maximum sentence of up to a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.

More: Dinolfo signs 'anti-annoyance' law protesters say is unconstitutional, racist

BDSHARP@Gannett.com