[Vision2020] Moscow's New Noise Ordinance

Wed Jan 23 09:05:02 PST 2008

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
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> Kai Eiselein
> Editor, Latah Eagle 
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080123/c7738d1a/attachment-0001.html 