The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
The city has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend its old noise ordinance.
Virginia Beach has asked the highest court in the country to review a Virginia Supreme Court decision from earlier this year that overturned the city's ordinance.
The state Supreme Court ruled that the city noise ordinance was too vague and unconstitutional because it relied on a "reasonable person" finding a sound too noisy, instead of a specific noise level. Virginia Beach has since changed its ordinance.
But the city's legal staff has continued to argue that the old ordinance was appropriate and constitutional. The city's request to the state Supreme Court to review its decision was denied.
Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court was the only option, said City Attorney Mark Stiles.
The "reasonable person" standard is used in other laws and the Fourth Amendment prevents "unreasonable" searches and seizures, Stiles said.
The city is concerned about the "collateral erosion of other laws," because of this decision and has already received a challenge to its disturbing the peace ordinance, Stiles said.
"This is an issue that really needs to be addressed," he said.
Stiles, however, acknowledged that the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing this case is small.
Kevin Martingayle, an attorney who represented an Oceanfront bar that fought the city's ordinance, said he is "baffled" by the latest turn in this case.
"I don't see any chance of success," Martingayle said.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
I Forgot
I also won'ted to say that resonable person has changed alot since the law was written. Back then most people were resonable now not many people are.
Ever since
The virginia beach legal department has gone over board ever since they started to sue for the base when there was a threat of it being moved.
Va Beach Noise Ordinance
The Virginia Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote declared unconstitutional Virginia's cross burning ordinance. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and it reversed, upholding Virginia's cross burning law.
The Virginia Supreme Court is not the final word on Federal Constitutional cases. That priveledge belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Beach just doesn't know when to quit, do they?
When your own state's supreme court shoots you down, most people have enough horse sense to figure out that maybe they are in the wrong. Not VA Beach's legal staff, apparently.
If I am not mistaken, its a moot point anyway, since VA Beach has changed the ordinance to address the shortcomings identified in the the state supreme courts ruling.
Whoever decided to waste taxpayer dollars pushing this issue should be fired.
ODD???
This seems odd to me, the city never seemed to worry about the bar's at the oceanfront before?? They seem to always try to put them out of bussiness, I am wondering if it has to do with the F35's Oceana wants?? My money is on the F35's and if it is, I will fight to the end to make sure the city will lose that battle!!! Citizens deserve more, and I am getting tired of being like all we are good for is paying higher taxes for pet projects!! The city needs to rethink this one, or they will have more problems-
Reasonable
I am not sure of the exact wording in the law but, I thought it was loud when it could be audible at 100 feet. So that means if a person rolls up to a traffic light/stop sign and a police officer is parked on the side of the road and he can hear the noise it is too loud. We give our law officials the authority to enforce the laws, we then tie their hands with unreasonable questions like this. When we allow a person to carry a firearm openly in the defense of others we can assume that person is reasonable unless otherwise disproved. When you get on board an airplane you assume the pilot is competent and reasonable and can fly the airplane. So is reason an assumption we use some time or all of the time? Would you give your money to someone like a criminal and expect them to take it to the bank for you? Then it should be reasonable to assume that a hired officer of the law is reasonable. That being said, the laws on the books are reasonable and should not be changed. I have had several birthday party's for my children, and always went around my neighborhood and told each of my closest neighbors that the noise would stop at 8pm.
You can't make that assumption
Assuming that all police officers are always reasonable in how they enforce the law is fallacy. If they were, you wouldn't need an "internal affairs" department, nor would you ever read about law enforcement agents who get busted for abusing their authority and extorting people. Granted, the vast majority of them exercise their authority with great professionalism, but some do not. Also, what a "reasonable" amount of noise is to one officer might not be "reasonable" to another. I personally do not want to be subjected to an arbitrary decision concerning whether or not I am making an excessive amount of noise, especially if my guilt or innocence of that charge is determined in a court where the judge will always side with the police officer in a case of "my word against his". The law was incredibly subjective and vague, and very smart people in our state supreme court recognized this.
Good grief!!
Why is the city wasting money on such a frivolous action. Sound can be measured with scientific instruments and almost all modern localities have noise laws based on specific decibel measurements within designated time frames. What, or how, could a "reasonable person" measure sound with their ears? For that matter, what is the definition of a reasonable person? Is it one that likes Kaine West, or one that likes Taylor Swift, or one that likes the sound of a big hulking Harley hog, or one that doesn't like anything louder than the Virginia Cardinal? Virginia Beach continues to lead the way into a land created in their own minds.
Very sad
The more I read some of the comments, the more I am scared and sad that people don't understand and appreciate the process of the Supreme Court. It isn't the law per se that they are evaluating, but the underlying legal principals upon which the law is based. They choose cases that appear seemingly benign because they are free from extentuating circumstances that would otherwise complicate the evaluation of the legal opinion. The Supreme Court isn't deciding about the noise, they are deciding about the use of a reasonable person standard, used in many laws around the country. They simply felt that this was a case that exemplified the reasonable person issue.
It's not the erosion of laws.
This quote from the article, "The city is concerned about the "collateral erosion of other laws," because of this decision and has already received a challenge to its disturbing the peace ordinance, Stiles said." shows the arrogance of the city government and law enforcement. I know two people that were charged in Norfolk under a same worded ordinance of "a reasonable person". Most of today's law enforcement and lawyers are far from "reasonable". The ordinance in Norfolk is intended to be for stationary equipment or devices in residential areas. Norfolk PD charged several motorcycle riders using this ordinance. When these two went to court, the charges were dismissed. The problem is that they each lost a day of work (no work=no pay) and sat in court for most of the day all due to the UN-reasonable actions of NPD. All one needs to do is observe the driving habits of many law enforcement officers to determine if they would be considered "reasonable". The days of "Good Ole Officer O'Kelly" are over and city hall is only there for their personal agenda and self interest.