The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club








Corvette Top Sites

Go Back   The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club > Florida Specific Forums > Legal Issues

      Photo Gallery Screen Saver!      

Legal Issues Traffic tickets | Laws | Pending Legislation

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 12-26-2012, 01:48 PM   #1
Rich Z
Internet Sanitation Engineer
 
Rich Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 15,123
Name : Rich Zuchowski
Rich Z will become famous soon enoughRich Z will become famous soon enough
Default 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?
__________________
Rich Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-26-2012, 04:42 PM   #2
mickeystoysz16
I have stripes
 
mickeystoysz16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wesley Chapel
Posts: 792
Name :
mickeystoysz16 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z View Post
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?
that is why the chambered exhaust systems were discontinued on the 69 Camaros. Mine is original from the factory before it was replaced with resonators.

The change at GM was due to customer complaints as a result of tickets from law enforcement and not from the any other source.

But I would have to agree Rich, would my chambered exhaust system be legal on a new car today?
__________________
2004 Z06 Corvette Z16 Commemorative Edition #770
2004 Silverado LS 5.3L SWB
1969 Camaro SS RS 396/350HP TH400



Members I have met:
LEJ_ZO6, JCB_NJB, als2052, Phil @ Tampa Tuning, Riceman, C5CHICK, Kap142
mickeystoysz16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-26-2012, 04:55 PM   #3
Rich Z
Internet Sanitation Engineer
 
Rich Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 15,123
Name : Rich Zuchowski
Rich Z will become famous soon enoughRich Z will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeystoysz16 View Post
that is why the chambered exhaust systems were discontinued on the 69 Camaros. Mine is original from the factory before it was replaced with resonators.

The change at GM was due to customer complaints as a result of tickets from law enforcement and not from the any other source.

But I would have to agree Rich, would my chambered exhaust system be legal on a new car today?
Well, a legal precedent has now been set, so quite likely this issue will find itself being decided in the courtroom.

Of course, exactly what ARE the limits on the definitions of what makes "free speech" and the "freedom of expression"? This could be quite a cat that has gotten out of the bag.
__________________
Rich Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-29-2012, 03:02 PM   #4
Mannings
Member

 
Mannings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nokomis
Posts: 438
Name : Rick Manning
Mannings is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z View Post
Well, a legal precedent has now been set, so quite likely this issue will find itself being decided in the courtroom.

Of course, exactly what ARE the limits on the definitions of what makes "free speech" and the "freedom of expression"? This could be quite a cat that has gotten out of the bag.
hmmmm? takng this to the extreme, wonder if open carry could just be "freedom of expression".
Mannings is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-29-2012, 07:11 PM   #5
Hameister
Member
 
Hameister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 40
Name :
Hameister has disabled reputation
Default

In some states, this issue has been determined with specific weight given to "cultural freedom of expression". Which takes it way beyond, free speech.

I'm certain that some will find my view too conservative, however, in my opinion, the courts will do everything they can to provide the most flexibility possible, to these offensively loud sound systems.

Why, simple....if a police officer, (and the courts), have to deal with some elderly person who's complaining they can't sleep, because of the loud music outside in the street, or have to deal with the person who is playing that loud music, (most often a minority), which way do you think they'll go.

I can gaurantee that if your exhaust system is "too loud", (entirely subjective police officer's opinion), you're getting a summons....period! Your love of car sounds culture doesn't count.
__________________
__________

I won't say I'm old, but I will admit to waiting 53 years for my first Corvette!
Hameister is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Florida Supreme Court hears arguments over 3 percent cut to state employee salaries RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 09-07-2012 01:32 PM
Florida Supreme Court upholds tough drug possession law RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 07-12-2012 07:55 PM
Florida Supreme Court rejects Gov. Charlie Crist's request to have minorities on list RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 07-03-2009 08:30 AM
Florida Supreme Court exempts nursing homes from records law RSS Feed Florida News Feeds 0 12-24-2008 08:31 AM
$2 a gal. gas tax? Daytona-Flyer The Ranting Room 16 05-23-2007 12:16 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.03987908 seconds with 13 queries
All material copyrighted by CorvetteFlorida.com and
the respective owners of the material posted.