• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Fighting A Noise Violation On A Technicality

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

miedurig

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? California.

I was charged with "Unreasonable Noise" between 10pm-8am (code and section 9.36.010). Here are the police officer's notes which will describe the situation that night:

I was dispatched to that location (my house) on the report of a loud party with 30 ore more people. I arrived on the scene and contacted the subject (myself). He identified himself as the only resident at the location. The party involved loud music, loud people talking and people singing. I estimated the party size to be about 30 people. I advised subject that he was causing a disturbance and needed to start sending people home. The subject refrained until six other police department units arrived on the scene.

My question to you helpful folk is can I fight this charge of "Unreasonable Noise" on a technicality? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
 


Indiana Filer

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? California.

I was charged with "Unreasonable Noise" between 10pm-8am (code and section 9.36.010). Here are the police officer's notes which will describe the situation that night:

I was dispatched to that location (my house) on the report of a loud party with 30 ore more people. I arrived on the scene and contacted the subject (myself). He identified himself as the only resident at the location. The party involved loud music, loud people talking and people singing. I estimated the party size to be about 30 people. I advised subject that he was causing a disturbance and needed to start sending people home. The subject refrained until six other police department units arrived on the scene.

My question to you helpful folk is can I fight this charge of "Unreasonable Noise" on a technicality? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
Does anyone else see a defense or a technicality in this?
 

Raptoer

Member
Nope, unless the officer came and beat someone up to lower the noise.

Sounds like a standard noise complaint. Ignoring police orders is never a good idea.
 

cvdesign

Member
The subject refrained until six other police department units arrived on the scene.
WHY in the H*LL did you wait until SIX other units arrived on scene???!!!! Why wasn't one cop saying "turn it down, make'em leave" enough to make you comply?!?! :eek::eek:

Personally, I kinda hope you're screwed, if that's the case ... I've had neighbors that violated the noise ordinances (and I have, too, on occasion), but I have NEVER known anyone that had to have SIX units on scene before they'd comply!!!!

I'll bet you'll have more problems with your neighbors than with the legal system.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I was charged with "Unreasonable Noise" between 10pm-8am (code and section 9.36.010). Here are the police officer's notes which will describe the situation that night:

I was dispatched to that location (my house) on the report of a loud party with 30 ore more people. I arrived on the scene and contacted the subject (myself). He identified himself as the only resident at the location. The party involved loud music, loud people talking and people singing. I estimated the party size to be about 30 people. I advised subject that he was causing a disturbance and needed to start sending people home. The subject refrained until six other police department units arrived on the scene.

My question to you helpful folk is can I fight this charge of "Unreasonable Noise" on a technicality? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
That is a municipal code section - what city did this happen in?

Knowing the section helps to evaluate the offense by letting us know what the elements are that must be proven by the state in order to get a guilty verdict at court.

So ... what "technicality" are you thinking of?

If the section involves having a loud and boisterous party, and neighbors are complaining, that may be sufficient. What's your argument? The cops and the neighbors are all out of whack, and that what was really heard was a noontime rehearsal of the local bible study and youth choir?

I also envision copious amounts of alcohol and a late hour.

- Carl
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
If you are in Santa Cruz, here is the section:

9.36.010CURFEW - OFFENSIVE NOISE.
(a)No person shall between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any offensive noise (1) which is made within one hundred feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes, or (2) which disturbs, or would tend to disturb, any person within hearing distance of such noise.

(b)"Offensive noise" means any noise which is loud, boisterous, irritating, penetrating, or unusual, or that is unreasonably distracting in any other manner, such that it is likely to disturb people in the vicinity of such noise, and includes, but is not limited to, noise made by barking or howling dogs, by an individual alone or by a group of people engaged in any business meeting, gathering, game, dance, or amusement, or by any appliance, contrivance, device, structure, construction, ride, machine, implement, or instrument.

(c)Subsection (a) above shall not apply between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to any person engaged in performance of a contract for public works awarded by the city of Santa Cruz where the director of public works determines that the project has the potential to disrupt traffic and that this disruption could be alleviated by authorizing construction work to commence at 7:00 a.m. or that due to time constraints on project completion it is necessary to allow the contractor to begin work at 7:00 a.m.

(d)Subsection (a) above shall not apply to any person engaged in performance of a contract for public works awarded by the city of Santa Cruz, in the event of emergency and if the city manager of the city of Santa Cruz so authorizes such work.

(e)Subsection (a) above shall not apply to any person engaged in the performance of a public or private construction project where either the chief building official, public works director, planning and community development director or water department director, in his or her sole discretion, determines that the specific tasks hereinbelow delineated to be undertaken in connection with the subject construction project require an extended period of time to complete or, due to concerns based on public health and safety, those tasks should be undertaken between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. When this determination has been made, the chief building official, public works director, planning and community development director or water department director may authorize such tasks to commence, be completed or be undertaken between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; however no such tasks shall be undertaken during these hours without the express written permission of the chief building official, public works director, planning and community development director or water department director and then only to the extent and between the hours specifically authorized in writing by the chief building official, public works director, community development director or water department director. At a minimum, notice of the dates and times such tasks will be undertaken shall be provided by the contractor in accordance with city instructions to all residents, tenants and property owners who occupy or own property within 300 feet of the site at which such tasks will be performed.

i.Large concrete foundation pours which cannot reasonably be split over multiple days;

ii.Movement of large quantities of construction materials which cannot safely be completed during normal daytime traffic;

iii.Movement of buildings, prefabricated structures or other large items which would cause extensive traffic disruption during non-curfew hours;

iv.Construction necessary to minimize disruption of public utilities.

(Ord. 2007-02 § 1, 2007: Ord. 97-05 § 1, 1997: Ord. 96-23 § 1, 1996: Ord. 80-29 § 1, 1980; prior code § 4274).​
Note the (a) and (b) sections ... I suspect that those elements have been met.

Guilty.

Bring your checkbook to court.

- Carl
 

cvdesign

Member
That is a municipal code section - what city did this happen in?

Knowing the section helps to evaluate the offense by letting us know what the elements are that must be proven by the state in order to get a guilty verdict at court.

So ... what "technicality" are you thinking of?

If the section involves having a loud and boisterous party, and neighbors are complaining, that may be sufficient. What's your argument? The cops and the neighbors are all out of whack, and that what was really heard was a noontime rehearsal of the local bible study and youth choir?

I also envision copious amounts of alcohol and a late hour.

- Carl
Okay, Carl ... as a former police supervisor, can I get a little nosey?

Why in the heck would it EVER take SIX units to get this guy to keep the noise down and send his playmates home???

Doesn't THAT carry a separate penalty? Sort of like "resisting arrest" or something?! :eek:
 

>Charlotte<

Lurker
Why in the heck would it EVER take SIX units to get this guy to keep the noise down and send his playmates home???
I would guess that when dealing with a raucus party of 30 or more people who have already demonstrated that they don't feel inclined to obey the first order--plus the alcohol factor--it's not unreasonable to expect to encounter further resistance, and all available units would show up in an effort to keep the situation from getting out of hand.

Drunks are, as a general rule, hard to reason with.
 

cvdesign

Member
I would guess that when dealing with a raucus party of 30 or more people who have already demonstrated that they don't feel inclined to obey the first order--plus the alcohol factor--it's not unreasonable to expect to encounter further resistance, and all available units would show up in an effort to keep the situation from getting out of hand.

Drunks are, as a general rule, hard to reason with.
Ah ... okay.

It's just that I've had police have to come and tell us to keep things down at a party a time or two (though less than 30 people -- 20 at most) and we complied immediately. I mean, so fast your head would've spun off your neck. Took one officer (once, two officers, but that was because he had a partner), not SIX.

'Course, that was years ago ... now I'm lucky if I stay up past 10! ;)
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Okay, Carl ... as a former police supervisor, can I get a little nosey?

Why in the heck would it EVER take SIX units to get this guy to keep the noise down and send his playmates home???

Doesn't THAT carry a separate penalty? Sort of like "resisting arrest" or something?! :eek:
That is why I am suspecting it was a little more than just reticence.

yes, it is possible that the night was slow and a lot of officers showed up at a call of a loud and boisterous party ... but, it's also possible that the poster or his friends were being a little more than boisterous when dealing with the primary officer.

Sometimes a show of force prevents further problems.

- Carl
 

>Charlotte<

Lurker
Oh, sorry--I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking why six units would respond. Apparently, you meant why the partiers wouldn't comply until six units responded.

Still, my last statement still fits. Drunks are not, as a rule, reasonable.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top