The a mandate requiring people in Sweetwater County to wear facial coverings in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic was extended last week, with its new expiration date set for Jan. 4, though a new statewide facial covering order announced Monday took effect Wednesday and expires Jan. 9.
Along with the mandate’s extension, other changes have been made. One of those changes regards the requiring anyone 12 years of age or older to wear a mask while encouraging children aged three to 11 to wear a covering.
Businesses within the county, as well as government buildings excluding state and federal buildings are required to post notices requiring a face covering near their entrances and employees must wear a facial covering if their work places them within 6 feet of customers, clients or other workers. Masks are also required for people working in highly trafficked areas such as reception areas and public restrooms.
According to the order, facial coverings are not required in a personal office that isn’t regularly visited by the public and if seated at a restaurant at least 6 feet away from other patrons, though patrons are required to wear a mask while entering, exiting or moving inside the restaurant space.
People who have a mental or physical health condition or disability that prevents them from wearing a mask are exempt from the order.
Other exemptions include people actively working out at a gym and following state recommendations, those who are hearing impaired or speaking with someone who is hearing impaired where the need to see a person’s mouth movements is essential, situations involving law enforcement to identify a person by removing their facial covering and situations where a facial covering is needed to be removed to obtain a service or verify an identity.
In addition to the order, Gov. Mark Gordon announced a series of tightened restrictions Monday that aims to curb the spread of COVID-19 across the state, which has since gotten support from Wyoming’s Washington, D.C. delegation, but has prompted the Sweetwater County Sheriff and the Sweetwater County Attorney to publicly question the move.
“Our state and those surrounding us are facing a hospital capacity crisis that now compels us to take additional action. All through the fall, Wyoming has seen a rise in serious cases of COVID to a point where every county is facing critical and dangerous levels of spread of the virus. Too many people have died,” Gordon said in a statement Monday.
Gordon initiated a statewide facial covering order that essentially copies mandates already in place in several counties, as well as limits to restaurant groups, gym class numbers and social gatherings. Gordon’s order also places a curfew on bars and restaurants serving patrons onsite, calling for a closures between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.
In a joint statement issued Tuesday, Sheriff John Grossnickle and County Attorney Daniel Erramouspe asserted their belief that the masking order, regardless of if it’s issued by the state or local health officer, is unenforceable.
“We encourage everyone to thoughtfully consider their friends, family and neighbors as we navigate the uncertainty of this pandemic. We’re all in this together, and we have to continue to work together to get through it,” Grossnickle said in the statement.
“While my personal feelings on the topic are well known at this point, wearing a mask is not the issue here. The issue is that this public health order is unenforceable from a law enforcement perspective because it doesn’t allow our deputies a way to separate those who are exempt from the mask requirement from those who are willfully violating it,” he said.
Erramouspe spoke about the ethical issues the mandate poses him, which he originally posed to community leaders throughout Sweetwater County during a virtual meeting called to discuss a mask order.
“The American Bar Association Standards for Prosecution states that a prosecutor is ethically bound to file charges if they reasonably believe the charges are supported by probable cause, that ‘admissible evidence’ exists to be sufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice,” Erramouspe said. “So, in order to successfully prosecute a mask mandate case, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person not wearing a face covering does not suffer from a medical or mental condition, or disability, that prohibits them from doing so. How can we prove that if the order itself prohibits the investigation and collection of evidence into this exception?”
Reader Comments(0)