[Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance

[Garrett Clevenger]

Moscow has a new Noise Ordinance (NO):(

After 4 months and many meetings, the city passed the
original proposed version, minus a few fairly
insignificant word changes.

To remind you of what our new NO says:

Police can now issue a citation at anytime for any
"noise" an officer deems offensive, even if no one
complains about the "noise."  You won't necessarily be
given a warning when you receive your misdemeanor
($159 to $359) if you are cited.

At the 1/22/08 City Council Meeting, Bill Lambert
moved to pass "Version A" and John Weber seconded it. 
Randy Fife then told everybody that he gave them the
wrong Version A.  The Version A in their council
packet was Version C.  So after some confusing
clarification by Randy, the council voted to pass
Version A.  Tom Lamar was the only one to vote against
it (thank you, Tom) and said he supported Version C
because it had time constraints and decibel limits
(officers would only issue citations without any
complaints between 10 pm and 7 am and if the noise
exceeds 55 decibels.)

The city posted both versions on their webesite last
Friday, and from what I can tell, that Version A is
different from the one the council received and the
one they voted on.  Here is the suspect text in the
website Version A:

"Sec 11-9 C. 
Peace officer citation.  At night time (10:00 P.M. to
7:00 A.M. local time), any City peace officer is
authorized to issue a citation upon his or her own
observation of a violation without the necessity of a
citizen complaint.  During daytime (7:00 A.M. to 10:00
P.M. local time) a City peace officer is authorized to
issue a citation upon his or her own 
observation of a violation without the necessity of a
citizen complaint only where such peace officer
confirms that the noise made in violation of the
provisions of this Chapter exceeds sixty-five (65)
dBA.  By signing a citation, the officer is certifying
that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that
the person cited committed the offense."

This text was removed from the version the city
passed.

To me, that text sounds more reasonable then the
version that is now law, and I almost didn't go to
tonight's meeting because I thought that at least it
has decibel limits.  But I wanted to testify and
witness the meeting, so I ventured into the cold...

During the meeting, I asked Mayor Nancy Chaney if she
would allow public comment (she had promised to let
the public comment, and now I had even more questions
for the city)  She said that she would not take public
comment because there was a motion on the floor and
that they have heard enough from people at other
meetings.

The least she could have done was kept her word and
allowed people to speak about this controversial law,
especially after Randy's confusing explanation about
Version A.  I think anybody who listens to the
recording of the council meeting available on their
website will also be confused. 
http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/cityclerk/2007minutesalt.asp

I met with our Chief of Police Dan Weaver a couple
weeks ago and asked him if he would recommend what
would become Version C.  He thought it was reasonable
and presented it to the Admin meeting, where Tom, and
I thought Dan Carscallen, supported it, too.  It
looked like reason was going to triumph, but somehow,
we now have the same law we've wasted our time trying
to change.  Where is our city?

As someone who has been very involved in this process,
I have been learning about other noise ordinances, and
have seen how the city has dealt with this issue. 
Tonight was not the first sign of unprofessional city
officials trying to pass a law that apparently is an
anomaly, as I have not seen any other noise ordinance
with such broad language and an excessive fine.  And
remember, landlords can be cited if their tenants are
cited. Don't we have a new city council all concerned
about property rights?  Apparently, those rights are
regarded the same as our First Amendment right.  You
may have to fight for them in court.

We pay our officials do their job, and if they are
providing misinformation and not letting the public
question them at their meeting, then they are not
being held accountable and are more then likely to
going make some bad decisions.  What's wrong with
giving the public the opportunity to comment before
they vote on a law?

The solution?

If someone is cited under our new noise ordinance
outside of a party house situation, I believe you have
a strong argument to challenge it in court.

The city initially advertised that they needed to
modify the NO because of repeat offenders and party
houses, but in the process passed a law that is
unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.  Idaho's
Appellate Court has ruled in other noise ordinance
challenges that cities cannot pass "unconstitutionally
overbroad and vague" laws.

Since our NO says that any "noise" can be citable
without anyone complaining, if you get a ticket
without any neighbor complaint outside of a party
house situation, then your argument is that you have
been subject to a law that is overbroad in it's means
of stopping party houses, the stated problem they were
trying to solve with the law.

Our First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no law
abridging the freedom of speech."

Well, our city just passed an unconstitutional law
that now potentially can violate our free speech
rights, and they did it in a way that was confusing,
misleading and so far, mostly unaccountable.

If someone challenges this law and the city defends it
and loses, I think those who voted to pass this law
should pay the bill.  But, more then likely, it is us
taxpayers, who have subsidized a process that has
taken up a lot of city time, who will be the ones
paying those legal fees if in the end, the law is
overturned by the courts.

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

http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html

Here you will find all kinds of interesting email
exchanges between city officials and citizens, and the
proposals the city has been presenting.  I believe
there is evidence lurking in there that could be used
in a trial.  Perhaps a judge will be able to see how
the city is in the wrong in this case.

I know if I am ticketed unreasonably under this law,
that will be my argument and defense, any ways.

Thanks for your interest.  At least I won't be ranting
about this any more, more then likely, for now...

Take care,

Garrett Clevenger