[Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Admin Meeting

[Dan Carscallen]

Sunil,
 
Good questions.
 
My understanding, listening to Weaver and Duke, is that the police don't
want to become the complaintants, and they don't want to drive around
looking for noise.  The main idea behind it, I believe, is to allow the
police to become the complaintant (signing the ticket) so someone who
wishes to remain anonymous can complain about the noise without fear of
retribution.  According to Liz Brandt, they don't need to set a decibel
level to remain legal.  I thought that might be a good idea, but that
level could change dependent on many factors.
 
You being a counsel for defense, I can see where you are coming from.  I
think the proper steps are being taken to make this ordinance work for
everyone.
 
DC

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Sunil Ramalingam
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:28 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Admin Meeting


Dan,

Before Halloween one of the kids across the alley from us came to our
door to give us their number, and let us know they were having a party.
He asked me to call him if the noise was a problem, and he would turn
down the music.

We never heard a thing, but I really appreciated the way he was willing
to take steps to keep the party in hand.

Now let's say the new ordinance gets passed.  Even if the neighbors
don't complain, are the police going to be able to hand out a citation?
And are they going to want to get in the house and start checking IDs?
When you give law enforcement 'tools,' they turn into pry bars used to
get into homes.

Sunil

> From: areaman at moscow.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:21:07 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Noise Ordinance Admin Meeting
> 
> Garrett, you ask:
> "I am still curious about your views on the NOM, Dan."
> 
> My view on the noise ordinance is that it is something we need. I
agree
> with Dan Schmidt that it's a tool law enforcement should be able to
use,
> since there are gaps in the current ordinance. I will also agree that
> the language is vague and that it makes it hard to enforce. From what
I
> understood from Liz Brandt, with a few minor tweaks the ordinance will
> be workable. I look forward to seeing what Fife comes up with, taking
> into account what Brandt and you have contributed to the conversation.
> 
> DC
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
> http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071115/a74ccf50/attachment.html