BULLSHIT. noise ordinance - LOSE YOUR CAR. FTP

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:56 pm

I'm actually shocked you can suck at life as bad as you do.

And don't come to Colorado, that ticket would be $60, and you'd deserve every penny. If you can't afford to speed, don't.

lucky · Post by **lucky** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:20 am

I love the noise ordinance laws around here. Town I'm in now, if your stereo can be heard 2 telephone poles away it's $50. One town north over the MA line, it's 105db within 10' of the vehicle; the looks on cops faces, when you ask where there db meter is, are priceless. I miss havin 4000 watts, I probably got under 30 total right now.

Falcon4 · Post by **Falcon4** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:16 am

LEARN TO WRITE ENGLISH, YOU STUPID ILLITERATE PIECE OF SHIT!

On a related note, I fucking hate the wordfilters here.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:43 am

lowlux wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/page ... geId=3.2.1

HOLY SHIT! Has anyone bothered to tell them about a document call the BILL OF RIGHTS!?!

That's a CLEAR violation of the 5th ammendment:

Bill of Rights wrote:No person shall be... ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Which means that in order for property to be confiscated, charges must be filed, a trial must be held and a CONVICTION must be handed down. Municipalities DO NOT get to just confiscate property when they feel like it. Defining "due process" to be NO process does NOT meet that requirement.

I can't wait for someone with a few dollars to get victimized by this law and take it to the Supreme Court.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:59 am

The Dark Side of Will wrote: Which means that in order for property to be confiscated, charges must be filed, a trial must be held and a CONVICTION must be handed down.

That is not true Will.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:01 am

Then what is true?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:05 am

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice are two different sectors. LE can confiscate property before the criminal justice system has even begun their job. Otherwise, LE would be useless, they wouldn't be able to stop anything. So if a LEO has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed by a known person, then the LEO can confiscate property related to the crime, or property that could pose an immediate danger to the LEO. Such as in a DUI, the LEO can confiscate the car on the reasonable assumption that the driver is too intoxicated to drive, despite having no proof, no verdict, no conviction.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:15 am

Aaron wrote:Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice are two different sectors. LE can confiscate property before the criminal justice system has even begun their job. Otherwise, LE would be useless, they wouldn't be able to stop anything. So if a LEO has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed by a known person, then the LEO can confiscate property related to the crime, or property that could pose an immediate danger to the LEO. Such as in a DUI, the LEO can confiscate the car on the reasonable assumption that the driver is too intoxicated to drive, despite having no proof, no verdict, no conviction.

I'm not talking about the current miscarriages of justice that you espouse with your decidedly thuggish understanding of enforcement.

I'm talking about the requirements of the Constitution, which are quite clearly stated above.

Constitutionally, the government CAN NOT take ownership of any personal property without "due process of law". This means that a court must adjudicate the matter before any confiscation can occur.

I know that confiscation happens with ZERO court involvement, but that is ILLEGAL.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:18 am

lowlux wrote:its like Britten here.. cameras on every street conner!

IF YOU DO NOT PAY THE FINE FOR RUNNING A RED LIGHT ( cameras ) THEY CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!

Well in Britain the rights of the people are preserved in Common Law, and can be abridged by Parlaiment. This is not the case in America.

The fact that property is confiscated without due process means that enforcement just hasn't pissed of a person with the means and inclination to fight the legal battle necessary to right this wrong.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:21 am

[Moved to AG]

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:40 am

I don't think we should arrest people for DUI anymore. We should just tell them to go home, and that they need to appear before a court in 2 months. Then we can arrest them and take their car. That sounds better for society.

Xanth · Post by **Xanth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:43 am

Aaron wrote:I don't think we should arrest people for DUI anymore. We should just tell them to go home, and that they need to appear before a court in 2 months. Then we can arrest them and take their car. That sounds better for society.

Arresting someone and impounding their car for DUI is fine. Arrresting someone, seizing their car and crushing or selling it off is not.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:44 am

Ohhh, so now it is ok to seize someone's property before the due process of the criminal justice system?

And before you misinterpret the article, they are not crushing the car or taking ownership. They are simply towing it, like they would if you are caught driving under the influence. You or a family member are free to go get the car back, after paying the impound fines.

Xanth · Post by **Xanth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:48 am

Okay, well when I'm thinking of Seized property, I think more along the lines of now the state has taken ownership and declared you no longer of a right to it.

I'm fine with just impounding it within reason.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:51 am

Exactly, that's what it means. The Municipal Gov actually taking ownership would obviously be outlandish.

Xanth · Post by **Xanth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:55 am

They don't mention exactly how they'll be gauging how loud is too loud though, they better make that very clear if they intend to fine people for it.

If they decided such a law is necessary then okay, but you have to at least let the people know exactly what is being outlawed.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:02 am

Despite Will's delusional belief in how the law is, that doesn't really matter.

In most municipalities, including my own, it is left to the Officer's Judgment. If the LEO says that the vehicle, or it's audio system, is loud enough to be disrupting, causing a nuisance, or be bothersome, then the Officer can cite you for it. And once in court, it'll be held up as the LEO is sworn to tell the truth, and has the judgment of a "Reasonable Person" according to the Government.

I'm not saying this is perfect, or right, but it's the way it is, and the way it has to be. It is simply not practical to make every officer carry a dB noise meter in their car with them all of the time. The Gov can't afford it, there isn't room in the cars, etc. It wouldn't be practical. But it needs to be enforced. Like the DUI, some things have to be bypassed for the safety, security, and overall preservation of quality of life for society. That being said, I don't think the municipality should give a noise level that is too loud. First, this is impractical, as most noise annoyances do not even read that high on noise meters (Bass for example). The feeling is much more disruptive than the noise meters show. Second, it just opens the door for people to ask for the Officer's dB meter. I think it should say, as it does in most, "Too loud by the judgment of the LEO."

Xanth · Post by **Xanth** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:04 am

So you have no way of being certain if you're breaking the law then.

Not even just a db meter, perhaps just a distance test like Lucky mentioned. If your stereo can be heard from X distance away then its too loud.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:10 am

Xanth wrote:So you have no way of being certain if you're breaking the law then.

Not even just a db meter, perhaps just a distance test like Lucky mentioned. If your stereo can be heard from X distance away then its too loud.

Not true at all. Just be reasonable, and respectful of others. I drive numerous cars that have the engine, or sound system, easily capable of breaking sound ordinances. But I don't do it when others are around, and don't go cruising the strip trying to blow people's eardrums out. The ordinances aren't there to stop the guy from opening up his F-body at the 1/4mi. They're there to stop him from doing it on the main drag until 3am.

The distance test is also impractical, as that relies on the subject leaving the engine or sound system at the same level as it was when the LEO heard it. Nobody would. At some point, you just have to believe the LEO when he says it was loud enough to draw attention and be disruptive to society. And I'll agree it leaves the door open for enforcement abuse, but if you knew half of what a city goes through to get an Officer hired and trained, you'd understand, there is no other way, and it is as good as it can plausibly get.

I'm sure most of us have been woken up, or kept awake, when we need to be asleep, due to the noise made by others. In this situation, you would be on society's behalf. And you'd be willing to bypass some rules in order to have enforcement. Is impounding someone's car a bit strict? Maybe. But I challenge you to live a few hundred feet from Academy Blvd in CO Springs. Because I do, and there is no prayer of a good night's sleep on a Friday or Saturday night. So noise violations that end in impoundment would be quite welcome by society here, and I wish they'd do it here.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:49 pm

Aaron wrote:Ohhh, so now it is ok to seize someone's property before the due process of the criminal justice system?

And before you misinterpret the article, they are not crushing the car or taking ownership. They are simply towing it, like they would if you are caught driving under the influence. You or a family member are free to go get the car back, after paying the impound fines.

I may have read the article too hastily... and it was poorly written. To me "taking a car away" means permanently.
BUUUT... a municipality trying to seize cars would not be any surprise to me, especially when we have the civil property seizure laws we have.

Don't some places actually seize cars that are taken from alleged DWI/DUI offenders?

However, property laws may be getting better. I won't look for it in VA any time soon, though.
http://www.aclu.org/police/forfeit/1457 ... 10208.html