[Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance

[Garrett Clevenger]

Kai,

Your example is not what I am trying to protect, so
that is a red herring.  The NO I was promoting would
target those besotten people you mention.

But, like it or not, the Supreme Court has said music
is free speech.  Since there is no set decibel limit
in our NO, not only music, but people talking in a
"loud, raucous or boisterous" way can get a ticket
even if no one complains.

The SC also said that limiting how much money can be
used for political purposes (campaign finance reform)
limits free speech, so if limiting money is a
violation of our First Amendment, it is only
reasonable to assume that limiting "noise" is also a
violation, particularly since there is defined limit
of how loud "noise" can really be.

So, I would say, we now have a law that potentially
represses our free speech rights, and the city likely
will face a challenge for writing an unconstitutional
law.

I ask you, why do you think it is reasonable to have a
law that allows police to issue a ticket at anytime
for any "noise" an officer deems offensive, even if no
one complains?

Garrett

--- "Kai Eiselein, editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
wrote:

> And how exactly is noise coming from a a bunch of
> besotten 20-somethings at 
> 3 a.m. on a Tuesday night "free speech"?
> No rights have been infringed upon, one can say
> whatever one wants, you just 
> can't do it at the top of your lungs to the
> annoyance of your neighbors.
> 
> Heck, I love the sound of straight pipes on a car,
> but I can't have them 
> because of the noise. Maybe I should sue?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:39 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance
> 
> 
> > 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."
> >
> 
=== message truncated ===