[Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance

[Garrett Clevenger]

The reason given to allow police to initiate a
citation is to prevent retaliation against people who
complain.  The police say they do not plan to cruise
around looking for NO violators (are they going to
wait for anonymous complaints?), and Randy F. says
that if someone complains anonymously about a noisy
neighbors, those records are available and if someone
wants that as evidence in a trial, they will be able
to find out who called, so there is no set anonymity.

So I wonder, how are the police going to enforce the
law without violating their promise and maintaining
complainee anonymity?

If they aren't cruising to target people, then there
won't be any citations.  If they wait for complaints,
then the reason for allowing police-initiated
citations (to allow for anonymity) is no longer valid
since the person who gets cited can find out who
complained. 

Therefore, it only seems logical to limit
police-initiated citations to the stated problem,
party houses, by having a set time frame and decibel
limit and therefore they will feel more comfortable
cruising for violators.  And if violators are
obviously breaking the law, it shouldn't be a big deal
to take a decibel reading to back up the charge.

If someone challenges a citation in court, the charge
is more likely to be upheld if there is evidence of a
noise violation, i.e. exceeding a decibel limit.  The
analogy is a traffic violation. You get a speeding
ticket if you exceed the speed limit.  That is
determined with a radar and that evidence is used in
court.  If there is no decibel reading being done by
police, the court is going to wonder how they
determined if the NO was violated.  It is in the
police's interest to have corraborating evidence, not
a subjective, "She was too loud because I thought she
was" which apparantly seems to be the argument the
city thinks is reasonable in citing somebody under
this law.

4 months of work on this, and the city still doesn't
get it.  I hope someone challenges the law and it gets
overturned, because there are way more reasonable ways
to deal with noise.  It's too bad that if that
happens, all of us will end up paying those legal fees
with our tax dollars.

Garrett

--- Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 
> Kai,
> 
> I don't know if this is a First Amendment issue or
> not, but the primary problem is that it appears one
> can be cited without the complaint of a neighbor,
> instead giving the officer the ability by
> him/herself to determine whether the noise is too
> loud, without any clear standard.  That means the
> standard will vary according to the officer's whims.
> 
> Sunil
> 
> > From: editor at lataheagle.com
> > To: garrettmc at verizon.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:47:46 -0800
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise
> Ordinance
> > 
> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===