<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Kai,<br><br>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.<br><br>Sunil<br><br>> From: editor@lataheagle.com<br>> To: garrettmc@verizon.net; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:47:46 -0800<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance<br>> <br>> And how exactly is noise coming from a a bunch of besotten 20-somethings at <br>> 3 a.m. on a Tuesday night "free speech"?<br>> No rights have been infringed upon, one can say whatever one wants, you just <br>> can't do it at the top of your lungs to the annoyance of your neighbors.<br>> <br>> Heck, I love the sound of straight pipes on a car, but I can't have them <br>> because of the noise. Maybe I should sue?<br>> <br>> <br>> ----- Original Message ----- <br>> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc@verizon.net><br>> To: <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:39 PM<br>> Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance<br>> <br>> <br>> > Moscow has a new Noise Ordinance (NO):(<br>> ><br>> > After 4 months and many meetings, the city passed the<br>> > original proposed version, minus a few fairly<br>> > insignificant word changes.<br>> ><br>> > To remind you of what our new NO says:<br>> ><br>> > Police can now issue a citation at anytime for any<br>> > "noise" an officer deems offensive, even if no one<br>> > complains about the "noise." You won't necessarily be<br>> > given a warning when you receive your misdemeanor<br>> > ($159 to $359) if you are cited.<br>> ><br>> > At the 1/22/08 City Council Meeting, Bill Lambert<br>> > moved to pass "Version A" and John Weber seconded it.<br>> > Randy Fife then told everybody that he gave them the<br>> > wrong Version A. The Version A in their council<br>> > packet was Version C. So after some confusing<br>> > clarification by Randy, the council voted to pass<br>> > Version A. Tom Lamar was the only one to vote against<br>> > it (thank you, Tom) and said he supported Version C<br>> > because it had time constraints and decibel limits<br>> > (officers would only issue citations without any<br>> > complaints between 10 pm and 7 am and if the noise<br>> > exceeds 55 decibels.)<br>> ><br>> > The city posted both versions on their webesite last<br>> > Friday, and from what I can tell, that Version A is<br>> > different from the one the council received and the<br>> > one they voted on. Here is the suspect text in the<br>> > website Version A:<br>> ><br>> > "Sec 11-9 C.<br>> > Peace officer citation. At night time (10:00 P.M. to<br>> > 7:00 A.M. local time), any City peace officer is<br>> > authorized to issue a citation upon his or her own<br>> > observation of a violation without the necessity of a<br>> > citizen complaint. During daytime (7:00 A.M. to 10:00<br>> > P.M. local time) a City peace officer is authorized to<br>> > issue a citation upon his or her own<br>> > observation of a violation without the necessity of a<br>> > citizen complaint only where such peace officer<br>> > confirms that the noise made in violation of the<br>> > provisions of this Chapter exceeds sixty-five (65)<br>> > dBA. By signing a citation, the officer is certifying<br>> > that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that<br>> > the person cited committed the offense."<br>> ><br>> > This text was removed from the version the city<br>> > passed.<br>> ><br>> > To me, that text sounds more reasonable then the<br>> > version that is now law, and I almost didn't go to<br>> > tonight's meeting because I thought that at least it<br>> > has decibel limits. But I wanted to testify and<br>> > witness the meeting, so I ventured into the cold...<br>> ><br>> > During the meeting, I asked Mayor Nancy Chaney if she<br>> > would allow public comment (she had promised to let<br>> > the public comment, and now I had even more questions<br>> > for the city) She said that she would not take public<br>> > comment because there was a motion on the floor and<br>> > that they have heard enough from people at other<br>> > meetings.<br>> ><br>> > The least she could have done was kept her word and<br>> > allowed people to speak about this controversial law,<br>> > especially after Randy's confusing explanation about<br>> > Version A. I think anybody who listens to the<br>> > recording of the council meeting available on their<br>> > website will also be confused.<br>> > http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/cityclerk/2007minutesalt.asp<br>> ><br>> > I met with our Chief of Police Dan Weaver a couple<br>> > weeks ago and asked him if he would recommend what<br>> > would become Version C. He thought it was reasonable<br>> > and presented it to the Admin meeting, where Tom, and<br>> > I thought Dan Carscallen, supported it, too. It<br>> > looked like reason was going to triumph, but somehow,<br>> > we now have the same law we've wasted our time trying<br>> > to change. Where is our city?<br>> ><br>> > As someone who has been very involved in this process,<br>> > I have been learning about other noise ordinances, and<br>> > have seen how the city has dealt with this issue.<br>> > Tonight was not the first sign of unprofessional city<br>> > officials trying to pass a law that apparently is an<br>> > anomaly, as I have not seen any other noise ordinance<br>> > with such broad language and an excessive fine. And<br>> > remember, landlords can be cited if their tenants are<br>> > cited. Don't we have a new city council all concerned<br>> > about property rights? Apparently, those rights are<br>> > regarded the same as our First Amendment right. You<br>> > may have to fight for them in court.<br>> ><br>> > We pay our officials do their job, and if they are<br>> > providing misinformation and not letting the public<br>> > question them at their meeting, then they are not<br>> > being held accountable and are more then likely to<br>> > going make some bad decisions. What's wrong with<br>> > giving the public the opportunity to comment before<br>> > they vote on a law?<br>> ><br>> > The solution?<br>> ><br>> > If someone is cited under our new noise ordinance<br>> > outside of a party house situation, I believe you have<br>> > a strong argument to challenge it in court.<br>> ><br>> > The city initially advertised that they needed to<br>> > modify the NO because of repeat offenders and party<br>> > houses, but in the process passed a law that is<br>> > unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Idaho's<br>> > Appellate Court has ruled in other noise ordinance<br>> > challenges that cities cannot pass "unconstitutionally<br>> > overbroad and vague" laws.<br>> ><br>> > Since our NO says that any "noise" can be citable<br>> > without anyone complaining, if you get a ticket<br>> > without any neighbor complaint outside of a party<br>> > house situation, then your argument is that you have<br>> > been subject to a law that is overbroad in it's means<br>> > of stopping party houses, the stated problem they were<br>> > trying to solve with the law.<br>> ><br>> > Our First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no law<br>> > abridging the freedom of speech."<br>> ><br>> > Well, our city just passed an unconstitutional law<br>> > that now potentially can violate our free speech<br>> > rights, and they did it in a way that was confusing,<br>> > misleading and so far, mostly unaccountable.<br>> ><br>> > If someone challenges this law and the city defends it<br>> > and loses, I think those who voted to pass this law<br>> > should pay the bill. But, more then likely, it is us<br>> > taxpayers, who have subsidized a process that has<br>> > taken up a lot of city time, who will be the ones<br>> > paying those legal fees if in the end, the law is<br>> > overturned by the courts.<br>> ><br>> > For Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance<br>> > Modification my visit:<br>> ><br>> > http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html<br>> ><br>> > Here you will find all kinds of interesting email<br>> > exchanges between city officials and citizens, and the<br>> > proposals the city has been presenting. I believe<br>> > there is evidence lurking in there that could be used<br>> > in a trial. Perhaps a judge will be able to see how<br>> > the city is in the wrong in this case.<br>> ><br>> > I know if I am ticketed unreasonably under this law,<br>> > that will be my argument and defense, any ways.<br>> ><br>> > Thanks for your interest. At least I won't be ranting<br>> > about this any more, more then likely, for now...<br>> ><br>> > Take care,<br>> ><br>> > Garrett Clevenger<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > =======================================================<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > =======================================================<br>> ><br>> Kai Eiselein<br>> Editor, Latah Eagle <br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br></body>
</html>