• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
Regarding that proposed ordinance, it seems to me that no tennis will be allowed after 10pm. I can hear tennis balls bouncing off rackets from distances much greater than 50ft.

Since everyone hears at different levels, I think enforcement of this ordinance wouldn't hold up in a Court.

Under "definitions," this is about as clear as mud: "Noise shall mean any sounds or vibrations which annoy or disturb humans or cause or tend to cause adverse psychological effects on humans, and which may be harmful or injurious to the health or welfare of a reasonable person with normal sensibilities or unreasonably interfere with the normal conduct of life, use of property, or outdoor recreation."

I'm totally confused, especially by the last part. Is this trying to say that outdoor recreation is exempt, or that I should be able to enjoy outdoor recreation without noise, or something else all together? Does this mean that I can legally play tennis after 10pm if someone can hear the stings hitting the ball from a distance greater than 50ft?

Again, all of the Court rulings which I've read regarding similar ordinances, rule in favor of the person(s) whom made the noise, because there is no precise measurement of noise recorded, thereby making the detection very unique per instance, depending on the officer's hearing who is responding to the complaint. The County can save some more money if they just googled the other cases. Also, are the officers going to get a survey of the subject property and use a tape measure to find the 50ft or more definition? Without a survey, how are they to know the property's boundary?

I have no clue about the "enclosed" house part of the proposed ordinance? Does this mean if one window is open, the Oridinance would not be enforced? What is the intent of this section?
It is still my non-legal opinion that the anonymity of the person reporting the incident is unConstituional. I think the language of the Founding Documents is fairly clear for all to understand.

One last note regarding the following exemption from the Ordinance:
"
The unamplified human voice."

If this is true that the unamplified human voice is exempt, how is that fair? It seems to me that noise is noise, and it should make no difference in the types of noise, if the Ordinance is to be applied equally to all people. That in itself sounds unConstitutional to me. (what do I know? I'm not an attorney.) I think more people need to learn their protected rights, granted to us by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 

sunspotbaby

SoWal Insider
Mar 31, 2006
5,010
739
Santa Rosa Beach
I have a problem with the "within 30 days" part. So, if a complaint is made, a warning given, the noise reduced or eliminated within 5 minutes, then 2 weeks later, another complaint on the same noise, then an arrest? The warning is valid for 30 days?

Sorry, I don't think a noise complaint justifies an arrest. Maybe a ticket, but not an arrest, IMO.

Also, is the complainant not required to identify himself? Even to the reporting officer? :dunno:
 

incredible1

Beach Lover
May 7, 2007
233
30
As much as I would like to take credit, they have been following this thread and found me in order to find some of you. Let's see what the new ordinance looks like. Hopefully this will be over. If not, CNN here we come.

Give 30atelevision a call too
 

the steenos

Beach Lover
May 8, 2006
240
13
Public hearings

I also contacted the government and per Jason Catalano, Commisioner's Aide he said the best way to get involved was to attend the 2 public hearings required before this passes and bring concerns to the board. The next meeting is May 11th at 4PM in the South Walton Annex. That is the Monday after next.
 

Groovegirls

Beach Fanatic
Oct 13, 2008
524
107
I have a problem with the "within 30 days" part. So, if a complaint is made, a warning given, the noise reduced or eliminated within 5 minutes, then 2 weeks later, another complaint on the same noise, then an arrest? The warning is valid for 30 days?

Sorry, I don't think a noise complaint justifies an arrest. Maybe a ticket, but not an arrest, IMO.

Also, is the complainant not required to identify himself? Even to the reporting officer? :dunno:


I never did get a clear answer but it sounds like the complaintant does have to give their name but it can be kept from the public. I think that in certain cases the name can be revealed but, as I said, I did not yet get a clear answer on this. We need a way to distinguish legitimate complaints. Just to be clear, I have no problem with any one who has a legitimate complaint. Not knowing the source of the complaint makes it that much harder to find a compromise. Let's face it. People are going to jail and there is no clear rememdy. Even if we adopt a perfect noise ordinance, disturbing the peace is still a great big catch all that can put people in jail.
 

Smiling JOe

SoWal Expert
Nov 18, 2004
31,648
1,773
I never did get a clear answer but it sounds like the complaintant does have to give their name but it can be kept from the public. I think that in certain cases the name can be revealed but, as I said, I did not yet get a clear answer on this. We need a way to distinguish legitimate complaints. Just to be clear, I have no problem with any one who has a legitimate complaint. Not knowing the source of the complaint makes it that much harder to find a compromise. Let's face it. People are going to jail and there is no clear rememdy. Even if we adopt a perfect noise ordinance, disturbing the peace is still a great big catch all that can put people in jail.

The clear answer is found in the Founding Documents of our Country. It is very clear that a county does not have the authority to over-ride the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Amendment 6 in the Bill of Rights states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

(Violation of the noise ordinance is a criminal act, according to the proposed Ordinance:

Section 9-143. Penalties.
a. All violations of this Ordinance shall be investigated, cited, processed, adjudicated and punished in the same manner as a misdemeanor, in accordance with F.S. ?125.69. Upon conviction, a violator may be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed 60 days, or by both fine and imprisonment, for each violation.)

I'm not sure how the people who write these county ordinances skip the basics of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I bet they flunked US History and US Gov't classes in high school. I'd also bet they cheated by copying other people's papers, because they sure seem to be simply copying other Counties' ordinances. WAKE UP, America!
 

robertsondavies

Beach Fanatic
Apr 16, 2006
500
28
Some do not like loud music, some do not like Wal mart and drive thru windows. Seems like everyone has an opinion or preference that affects the cash registers of others.

I would imagine that there is quite a bit more to the story than just loud music and an immediate arrest. I am sure it will make it to the Sun before the week is out.

Surprising to me that you think the Sun is the best source for real news - I have found that the posts on this board to be more timely, and more pithy -
Not that the Sun is that bad as community papers go - more and more however, community papers are places to sell ads to the folks that still read them for news, a dwindling but meaningfully sized lot.
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
Surprising to me that you think the Sun is the best source for real news - I have found that the posts on this board to be more timely, and more pithy -
Not that the Sun is that bad as community papers go - more and more however, community papers are places to sell ads to the folks that still read them for news, a dwindling but meaningfully sized lot.


Personally, I find it to be lacking in credibility based on my experience. But at least they present another side of things. Since Chilcutt is still recovering from his accident I have to use what little is available.

What I really do not understand is that this ordinance is going to be passed (hope not), for the main reason of dealing with a very small handful of offenders, not all of which are musicians. Then the whole county is going to be subject to another ordinance that is going to be selectively enforced, when we have laws on the books today that could solve all of this, if it can be solved.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter