The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club - Florida Supreme Court rejects state noise law as unconstitutional

Quote:

Florida Supreme Court rejects state noise law as unconstitutional

By Lloyd Dunkelberger, Herald-Tribune / Thursday, December 13, 2012

Florida’s law telling drivers who blast their car stereos to turn down the volume unreasonably restricts free speech rights, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision invalidating the noise law will reverberate throughout the state in communities like Sarasota, which have modeled local ordinances and restrictions based on the state law.

Sarasota went even further, using its ordinance to fine drivers and impound their cars. But the noise restriction has not been enforced since 2010, when the American Civil Liberties Union and the city reached an agreement on a legal challenge.

It marked the second time this week that the courts have shot down a regulation to control the quality of life in Sarasota.

On Tuesday, a county judge ruled that the city must stop enforcing its ordinance banning smoking in public parks.

In Thursday’s ruling, which was based on two Pinellas County cases, the state’s highest court upheld an opinion from the 2nd District Court of Appeal nullifying the 2005 state law, which allowed police officers to pull over motorists if their sound systems were “plainly audible” from 25 feet away.

Justice Jorge Labarga wrote in the majority opinion that “the statute is invalid because it is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of expression.”

The justices found the law “overbroad, but not unconstitutionally vague.”

One of the faults of the law was that it did not apply “equally to music, political speech and advertising,” Labarga wrote. The business and political sound systems were exempted from the law.

“For instance, business and political vehicles may amplify commercial or political speech at any volume, whereas an individual traversing the highways for pleasure would be issued a citation for listening to any type of sound, whether it is religious advocacy or music, too loudly,” he wrote.

The state, which contended the law was aimed at improving highway safety, argued that the noise restriction on private vehicles was necessary since those vehicles were more “ubiquitous” than commercial or political vehicles.

But Labarga said that restriction went too far.

In 2008, Sarasota city commissioners passed an ordinance allowing officers to not only ticket someone if they could hear their music from 25 feet away, but also impound their car — leaving violators with a hefty fine and making Sarasota the most expensive Florida city to get caught cranking up the jams.

Sarasota Police Capt. Paul Sutton said car stereo noise has remained a constant concern at neighborhood meetings while the case has been under appeal, particularly in North Sarasota, Sutton said.

Police hear from people who awake at 2 a.m. to music that so loud it sounds like it’s coming from inside their house, Sutton said.

“That’s a concern that affects the quality of life,” he said.

Nearly every weekend, Mary Mack’s windows rattle and her television is drowned out by the bass sound from cars passing her Amaryllis Park home, a block from Orange Avenue.

“I have a right to have peace in my neighborhood,” said Mack, who was disappointed when she learned two years ago that police could not enforce the noise ordinance. She said she has noticed more loud music since then.

“I don’t understand why disturbing someone else’s peace is not against the law,” she said.

The Supreme Court justices rejected the argument from Richard T. Catalano, a Pinellas County corporate lawyer who was pulled over for loudly playing a Justin Timberlake song on his car stereo, that the “plainly audible” standard was unconstitutionally vague.

The justices also decided not to use the decision to invalidate the provision that gave special protection to commercial and political messages, while leaving the remainder of the law standing.

Labarga said removing that provision “would expand the statute’s reach beyond what the Legislature contemplated.”

“Accordingly, in striving to show great deference to the Legislature, this court will not legislate and sever provisions that would effectively expand the scope of the statute’s intended breadth,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was encouraging, Sarasota City Attorney Robert Fournier said, because it leaves room for revision of the law. He said he hopes the Legislature will use it to find a way to protect the public from excessively loud noise.

In an email this week to a resident who is concerned about vehicles blasting music at 4 a.m. in Newtown, Fournier said the city is looking into other laws that could be used to control the problem.

The ACLU, which filed a brief in support of Catalano’s challenge, praised the Supreme Court decision. Andrea Mogensen, the Sarasota lawyer who argued the case for the ACLU of Florida, said the decision was a strong affirmation of the First Amendment, upholding the doctrine that free speech takes precedence over nuisance and annoyance laws that could be subjectively enforced.

The most critical part was the court’s rejection of different speech standards for individuals versus commercial or political interests, she said.

“The very irrational part was it had an exception for commercial speech, which is every bit as irritating in volume as any other kind,” Mogensen said. “It left a lot of room for selective enforcement.”

The ruling was essentially unanimous, although three justices — Charles Canady, Ricky Poston and Peggy Quince — concurred in the result, without offering opinions on why they may have differed with the reasoning of the decision.

Here is a link to the court’s opinion.

Source: http://politics.heraldtribune.com/20...onstitutional/

Well, you do have to wonder if this could also be construed to cover loud exhaust on vehicles as well. After all, is this not also someone's expression of their own freedom, every bit the same as their choice to play loud music?