My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-017
CBCC
>
Ordinances
>
2020's
>
2020
>
2020-017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2020 12:15:26 PM
Creation date
11/18/2020 12:15:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Ordinances
Ordinance Number
2020-2017
Adopted Date
11/17/2020
Agenda Item Number
10.A.1.
Ordinance Type
face covering extension
State Filed Date
11\17\2020
Entity Name
Indian River County
Subject
Face Coverings, mask wearing extension until January 21, 2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-017 <br />for making "do-it-yourself' coverings for people that cannot or do not want to buy one from <br />the increasing sources producing and selling coverings; and <br />WHEREAS, the CDC, the Florida Department of Health and the University of <br />Florida recommend the use of face coverings, including those which are homemade to <br />slow the spread of the disease; and <br />WHEREAS, in a recent United States Supreme Court Case, the Court denied <br />injunctive relief where California limited attendance at places of worship due to COVID- <br />19. Chief Justice Roberts described COVID-19 as "a novel severe acute respiratory <br />illness that has killed... more than 100,000 nationwide" and noted that "(a)t this time there <br />is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine" and "(b)ecause people may be <br />infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others." Chief Justice Roberts also <br />stated the precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be <br />lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact -intensive matter subject to reasonable <br />disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts '(t)he safety and the health of the <br />people' to the politically accountable officials of the States' to guard and protect'... When <br />those officials'undertake() to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, <br />'their latitude' must be especially broad.' ... Where those broad limits are not exceeded, <br />they should not be subject to second-guessing by 'an unelected federal judiciary,' which <br />lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not <br />accountable to the people." S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. <br />1613; and <br />WHEREAS, Alachua County issued Emergency Order 2020-21 requiring face <br />masks in certain circumstances. The County's Emergency Order was challenged in State <br />Circuit Court and in Federal District Court. Both Courts issued Orders denying Plaintiffs' <br />Emergency Motions for Temporary Injunction. In denying the request for temporary <br />injunction, State Circuit Judge Donna M. Keim stated, "The protection of the safety and <br />welfare of the public is inherent in the role of local government ... The requirement to wear <br />a facial covering during the limited circumstances set forth in the ordinance is a minimal <br />inconvenience; and, its benefits to the public in potentially reducing the spread of COVID- <br />19 outweighs any inconvenience." "Here, there is a global pandemic involving COVID- <br />19, a virus which the CDC and others advise is spread through airborne transmission and <br />is spread by asymptomatic individuals. Multiple sources relied upon by the County reflect <br />that mitigation is dependent upon the use of social distancing and personal protection <br />equipment, such as face masks/coverings. The County's need to take measures to control <br />the spread of COVID-19 clearly outweighs the Plaintiffs private interest in not wearing a <br />mask in the limited circumstances required by the county's emergency order; and an <br />injunction in this situation would disserve the public interest." Green v. Alachua County, <br />Case No.: 01- 2020- CA- 001249 (Order dated May 26, 2020). See also: Ham v. Alachua <br />County Board of County Commissioners et. al., Case No. 1: 20cv111- MW/ GRJ (Order <br />dated June 3, 2020 by Chief United States District Judge Mark E. Walker) ("Plaintiffs have <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.