[Vision2020] Moscow Noise Ordinance rewrite

[Garrett Clevenger]

Hello Randy,

I just reviewed Moscow's rewritten noise ordinance
amendment.  It doesn't seem like it was changed very
significantly from the previous draft.  It doesn't
seem like it addresses the party house problem and
still maintains an undue burden on citizens.   None of
my suggestions were used that would have narrowed the
scope of this law. I would like to get your opinion on
the language, if you don't mind, so that we are clear
about this.

This is a quote from the NO, with the addition [in
brackets]:

Sec. 11-2 (the last line)

"these acts may constitute a violation even when the
noises created are within the [decibel] limits
contained elsewhere herein" 

What does this mean in legal terms?  Does that mean
there is no set maximum decibel level and that any
volume can be a violation?

If so, how is that not "unconstitutionally overbroad
and vague?" 

>From the way I read it, any sound can be citable,
since the language is pretty subjective.  This seems
like a violation of our First Amendment right.  Am I
overreacting in feeling that this is an infringement
and thus an illegal law?  If someone were cited under
this, would they have good grounds to challenge?

Since this is our current NO, if what I am saying is
correct, then hasn't this law been pushing the limit
on restricting our right to free speech since it was
passed?


The previous version of the amendment included
allowing "police officers" to make the complaint. 
This one removed that reference, but you said at one
of the meetings that adding "police" in the previous
amendment was just to clarify that police can be the
complainant, and that the way you interpreted things
was that police can be the complainant in our current
ordinance. The new amendment suggests that police can
still be a complainant.   Can police be a complainant
under this new amendment and cite someone without a
civilian complaint?  Is that what "persons" mean in
reference to whose peace is disturbed in Sec 11-2?


If so, my conclusion, therefore, is that we can still
say that this law will allow a police officer to issue
a citation at any time for any noise an officers deems
offensive, without anyone complaining.

Is my summary correct?


Since the ID Supreme Court has said, "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, it seems if
this law passes then the city has chosen a
"substantially broader than necessary" means to solve
the party house problem. 

If someone were cited under the new law in a situation
outside of the party house scenario, would that be a
good grounds to challenge as well?

If the city loses a court fight, does the city have to
pay money?

Where does the money come from?

Are city officials who knowingly risked passing this
law liable for any monetary damages from a lawsuit the
city may fight but end up losing?

I realize I have asked you a lot of questions, but I
believe the citizens of Moscow deserve to know what
this law says and the repercussions that may occur if
it is passed.

I have cc'd our City Council an Mayor and Vision 2020
so that we can clear things up.  I do not want to be
misleading people based on my interpretation, so if
you would please answer my questions, we would be most
grateful, and hopefully this will be resolved
reasonably.  Otherwise, I will ask these same
questions at the Admin meeting.

Thanks for your time and for giving your feedback!

Garrett Clevenger

For my Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance
Modification:

http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMlanguage.pdf