[Vision2020] ID Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Noise Ordinance

[Garrett Clevenger]

Thanks for this info, Kit.

I appreciate you being engaged with your constituents.
 What I will remember most about my involvement with
this issue is how our elected officials were willing
to negotiate with those you serve.  You are near the
top for interacting on this issue.  But I still hope
you will move to the top and support a new Noise
Ordinance Modification.

I believe this ID Supreme Court ruling of 2003 backs
up my point.  Page 3 you refer to, in my mind, says
you have taken the NOM too far (overbreadth) and not
just on my First Amendment right of music, but on
actual speach, by infringing on our rights more than
necessary to solve the party house problem.

To be fair, this court challenge resulted from music
out of a car.  A different circumstance then someone
talking "noisily" in their house.  But let's use it as
a guide.

The SC ruled against Medel because, they said in their
conclusion, the AF NO was not "unconstitutionally
overbroad and vague."

The NO you are supporting is "unconstitutionally
overbroad and vague" because it does not specify what
"noise" is.  Here's the wording of our NO:  

NOISE REGULATIONS  Sec. 11-1:  The following acts,
among others, are declared to be unlawful nuisance
noises in violation of this Code Section, but said
enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive; these
acts may constitute a violation even when the noises
created are within the limits contained elsewhere
herein: ."

I interpret that, and Randy Fife has said, that there
is no limit or level in our current NO.

Are we mistaken in assuming this?


>From what I can tell, this law has been
unconstitutional from the day it was passed.  I
believe the SC would have overturned it if it were
ever challenged.

Now the police have modified the NO for a "narrowly
tailored" specific purpose: solve the party house
problem.  That was how it was advertised.  The SC
ruling you sent says, "so long as the means chosen are
not substantially broader than necessary to achieve
the government's interest, a regulation will not be
invalid simply because a court concludes that the
government's interest could be adequately served by
some less speech-restrictive alternative."

Based on my reasonable interpretation of the NOM, I
believe you have chosen a substantially broader than
necessary means to solve the problem.  You have given
the police the right to give anybody in Moscow at
anytime for any "noise" an officer deems offensive a
ticket, even if no one complains.

That seems like a "substantially broader than
necessary" means to solve the party house problem.

If I am right, the SC will overturn it, and all this
work will be for naught.

So now there are two potentially challengeable reasons
to modify the NOM.

Why are you so attached to the current NOM?

Are you willing to reword the NOM to make it more
reasonable?

I would like your answers to this questions soon
because tomorrow at 3 pm is the Admin Meeting.  I plan
to bring all this evidence in and look forward to
helping make government serve its citizens
responsibly.

I also will be posting this to v2020 as I feel your
constituents deserve to read our conversation over an
issue that will affect us all.

Thank you,

Garrett

Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance
Modification: (includes Supreme Court ruling refered
to above)

http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html



--- Craine Kit <kcraine at ci.moscow.id.us> wrote:

> Garrett.
> 
> See the attached, particularly page 3.
> 
> Kit
> 
> > 
> On Nov 9, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> 
> >
> > I wish I could have faith this will not violate
> > anyone's CRs, but the way the law is written, I
> would
> > like you to explain how our 1st Amendment is not
> > infinged:
> >
> 
>