Monday, October 8, 2007
Pieces of My Mind
by Josh Studor
Moscow may be less free after Monday’s vote. Monday, Moscow City Council voted on an amendment to the city noise ordinance that would get rid of the need for a complaint before police can cite people for violations. The vote paves the way for a new form of pre-textual stop; a kind that targets an individual’s home.
Prior to this vote, officers had to receive a complaint and give the violator a warning. If a neighbor called in a second complaint within 48 hours, the officer could cite the noisy person. Police could not just show up and issue a citation.
Cops now can (assuming the ordinance passed).
Aside from the fact that noisy people might not be bothering anyone around them and the fact that nice neighbors just go ask the loud neighbor to tone it down; my problem is that officers can now have another way to use probable cause to look in our homes.
Picture this: 20 people are hanging out in an apartment drinking libations. Two of those 20 are underage. A cop drives by the apartment and hears some loud laughter and decides that his peace is disturbed. The cop goes up to the apartment door (complete with probable cause) and knocks.
Officer: “Hi there, do you know why I knocked on your door?”
Tenant: “No sir, did someone complain about some noise?”
Officer: “No, I just heard you all from the street. Is that alcohol?”
Tenant: “Yes.”
Officer: “Is there anyone here underage?”
Now comes a decision. Does tenant admit to there being underagers in the home and face a contributing charge OR does she lie and face a charge of providing false info or even obstructing? See the dilemma?
Lately, Moscow has been on a civil liberty violation rampage. Earlier this semester, they passed an ordinance making it illegal for more than four unrelated individuals to live together. Previously it was six. This sounds unconstitutional but no, the Supreme Court has ruled that ordinances like these are a valid use of police powers. So, those of you who are thinking of having your significant other move in with you and your three friends, think again. Or those poor college students who need to split a four-bedroom house five ways: forget it.
City Council elections are coming next month. I suggest you keep these new ordinances in mind when you mark your box. For the record, supporters of the noise bill include: John Weber, Bill Lambert and Mayor Nancy Chaney. At press time there was no word on how Aaron Ament or Linda Pall planned to vote.
A Minnesota judge has refused to allow Sen. Larry Craig (ID-R) to withdraw his guilty plea. Thank god! Why he thought he would be able to anyway is beyond me. The only reason he tried to withdraw is that the plea was made public. He was guilty as charged and needs to face the music.
Now, to all of you who are iffy about what he did being a crime, let me present the following: First, if he was soliciting sex with the man in the stall, he was not trying to get the guy to leave the airport, go to a hotel, mess around and go home. No, he was planning on sex right then and there. If that is unbelievable, look at Craigslist.com. It happens.
Plus, Craig knew what he was doing when he pled guilty. He had two months to consider his plea or consult with an attorney. He did a written plea out of the presence of a judge or a prosecutor. There was no undue pressure from the court or the state. If he didn’t think what he had done was a crime he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty. He’s a senator for Christ’s sake.
So, Mr. Craig, even though you refuse to, you should now resign in shame for being a hypocrite, a person who was conducting himself in a disorderly way, and, worse of all, for being a closeted homo in Idaho. Now it’s time to move to Miami, get a pool boy, and disappear into obscurity.
Moscow may be less free after Monday’s vote. Monday, Moscow City Council voted on an amendment to the city noise ordinance that would get rid of the need for a complaint before police can cite people for violations. The vote paves the way for a new form of pre-textual stop; a kind that targets an individual’s home.
Prior to this vote, officers had to receive a complaint and give the violator a warning. If a neighbor called in a second complaint within 48 hours, the officer could cite the noisy person. Police could not just show up and issue a citation.
Cops now can (assuming the ordinance passed).
Aside from the fact that noisy people might not be bothering anyone around them and the fact that nice neighbors just go ask the loud neighbor to tone it down; my problem is that officers can now have another way to use probable cause to look in our homes.
Picture this: 20 people are hanging out in an apartment drinking libations. Two of those 20 are underage. A cop drives by the apartment and hears some loud laughter and decides that his peace is disturbed. The cop goes up to the apartment door (complete with probable cause) and knocks.
Officer: “Hi there, do you know why I knocked on your door?”
Tenant: “No sir, did someone complain about some noise?”
Officer: “No, I just heard you all from the street. Is that alcohol?”
Tenant: “Yes.”
Officer: “Is there anyone here underage?”
Now comes a decision. Does tenant admit to there being underagers in the home and face a contributing charge OR does she lie and face a charge of providing false info or even obstructing? See the dilemma?
Lately, Moscow has been on a civil liberty violation rampage. Earlier this semester, they passed an ordinance making it illegal for more than four unrelated individuals to live together. Previously it was six. This sounds unconstitutional but no, the Supreme Court has ruled that ordinances like these are a valid use of police powers. So, those of you who are thinking of having your significant other move in with you and your three friends, think again. Or those poor college students who need to split a four-bedroom house five ways: forget it.
City Council elections are coming next month. I suggest you keep these new ordinances in mind when you mark your box. For the record, supporters of the noise bill include: John Weber, Bill Lambert and Mayor Nancy Chaney. At press time there was no word on how Aaron Ament or Linda Pall planned to vote.
A Minnesota judge has refused to allow Sen. Larry Craig (ID-R) to withdraw his guilty plea. Thank god! Why he thought he would be able to anyway is beyond me. The only reason he tried to withdraw is that the plea was made public. He was guilty as charged and needs to face the music.
Now, to all of you who are iffy about what he did being a crime, let me present the following: First, if he was soliciting sex with the man in the stall, he was not trying to get the guy to leave the airport, go to a hotel, mess around and go home. No, he was planning on sex right then and there. If that is unbelievable, look at Craigslist.com. It happens.
Plus, Craig knew what he was doing when he pled guilty. He had two months to consider his plea or consult with an attorney. He did a written plea out of the presence of a judge or a prosecutor. There was no undue pressure from the court or the state. If he didn’t think what he had done was a crime he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty. He’s a senator for Christ’s sake.
So, Mr. Craig, even though you refuse to, you should now resign in shame for being a hypocrite, a person who was conducting himself in a disorderly way, and, worse of all, for being a closeted homo in Idaho. Now it’s time to move to Miami, get a pool boy, and disappear into obscurity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As someone who has been active in making sure this unconstitutional law doesn't get past, I wanted to further clarify what this law says, and why it should be modified.
The First Amendment of our Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
The noise ordinance as amended gives the police the right to give a ticket to anybody in Moscow at anytime for any "noise" an officer deems offensive, even if no one complains.
The current noise ordinance now says:
"The following acts, among others, are declared to be unlawful nuisance noises in violation of this Code Section, but said enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive; these acts may constitute a violation even when the noises created are within the limits contained elsewhere herein"
That means that there is no set "noise" limit or level.
In other words, the old ordinance is probably unconstitutional while the new noise ordinance will allow police officers to issue a citation for any "noise" an officer deems offensive without any warning.
The whole intent of the amendment is to target party houses, yet they chose to write a law that affects everybody's free speech. That is "unconstitutionally overbroad and vague."
The Idaho Supreme Court says that laws cannot be "unconstitutionally broad and vague" and that laws cannot have means of solving a stated problem that are broader then necessary.
Clearly, the sweeping amendment that may become law in Moscow is "unconstitutionally overbroad and vague." This would then be challenged and more then likely overturned, costing taxpayers $$$, all the while creating a chilling effect in the town I live in.
I do not think we should pass laws that are not only illegal, but essentially repressive to our freedom of expression.
There are plenty of countries (ie Iran, Pakistan) who love these kinds of laws. Fortunately, in America, we have a Constitution that gives us guaranteed civil liberties that we should cherish.
I believe the city has finally realized this and now is rewording the amendment to be more constitutional.
I have my Written Record for Moscow's Noise Ordinance Modification of 2007 here:
http://garrettclevenger.com/NOMhistory.html
Perhaps your readers would care to delve in to the details and the story of how this has been unfolding. At that point, I think it will become clear that there is more than just this noise ordinance that is the problem
Thank you for your opposition to the amendment and allowing me the freedom to express my thoughts!
Take care,
Garrett Clevenger
Post a Comment