OK, maybe not literally “by sundown.”
But Rives Grogan was in fact banned from the city – Washington, DC, no less – by DC Judge Karen Howze:
This order seems a bit overbroad to me, and thus on shaky constitutional grounds. Seems to me he could be barred from federal government buildings, or maybe just the Congress, White House, and Supreme Court.
Still, if anyone deserves a total ban, this guy would seem to be the guy.
I was under the vague impression that we have a constitutional right to freedom of movement, and that nobody can be banned from states or municipalities (well, specifically I thought about states, but I assumed it applied to municipalities). Is there any such right?
However, I’m confused about how the “overbroad” thing works. If he were jailed, he’d be banned from everywhere on earth except his jail cell. Surely that’s constitutional. How does the ban from a municipality work?
In any case, I see jerks like this as an unpleasant but necessary result of free speech. If he’s trespassing in public buildings, that’s one thing; but being in a tree? Meh. Let him do this thang.
I must be turning into a fan of dictatorship or something because I would vote to send this guy to a PRK “work camp” for life. 
+1
Permitting someone to occupy a high perch when high-value targets are walking around seems like a legitimate security concern, yes?
I agree that it’s overbroad. What I could see is convicting him of a crime, assuming one was committed, and the DA is able to prove their case, then placing him on probation. A condition of that probation being that he is barred from entering the city.
Once his probation is over, he is again a free man.
This article suggests the ban is only until his next court appearance, not just that it’s temporarily lifted at his court appearance.
If it is constitutional, I hope they use it against the WBC. I also hope it’s not constitutional.
A judge once banned me from Dade Country Florida. I ignored the ban, but he told me never to come back.
Even if it is constitutional (which I highly doubt if the ban is as speculated), it won’t work against the WBC. The ban is related to an arrest apparently based on probable cause, not just being a jerk.
What if they filed a restraining order keeping him 50,000 yards from the President?
Wow, a judge dropped the banhammer.
Banned for trolling too.
It does, and again pardon my ignorance (or, rather, annihilate it), but is presenting a security concern illegal? In other words, which specific law did he violate? What are the penalties for violating the law?
However, on reading the second linked article, it sounds like that was a condition of release on bail. My impression is that judges have much wider latitude in such cases; is this correct?
He’s apparently being charged with screwing up the tree and endangering himself and others. He also has other pending charges in DC from other incidences.
Kind of agree with the article that the restrictions on his movements were overly broad. Its hard to see what the purpose is served by ordering him out of the whole city, instead of just the areas around federal buildings. I don’t think he’s anymore likely to re-offend in the outskirts of DC then he is in Kentucky.
I have no idea of the legality but I can tell you it happens.
I (and several other guys) was escorted to the outskirts of Franch Lick Indianna and told by the local constable to never come back under penalty of some vague threat of violence.
I knew a guy who was convicted of several drug and driving offenses just after we got out of high school. His dad was a well connected doctor in town so he was given the option of going to jail or staying out of town for several years. He chose leaving town. Sad thing is, he ended up going to the town where many in our class were going to college and he continued being a screw up there.
The judge who banned him from town for several years doesn’t care if the guy is still a screw up, as long as he’s a screw up somewhere else. That way, the judge and the police don’t have to spend their time and their budget watching him, trying him, and jailing him. He’s someone else’s problem.
The Law dictionary I have at hand has no case law annotations under BANISH or EXILE.
Isn’t that simply a condition of probation or dismissing a case if the terms are agreed to by the defendant?
Like making a shoplifter stand on a corner with a sign, saying such as “I am a shoplifter” in return for probation or a reduced sentence?
I’m wondering about the “for good” part of the condition. Even if the judge can banish as a parole condition, can he make such a condition last the rest of someone’s life?
Thread #435 I could hijack into a discussion of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
The short answer is that we don’t know exactly what the limits are on a judge’s ability to condition discretionary parole.