You are here: / / Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally...
, ,

Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague

The defendant was stopped by the police for a violation of a city ordinance prohibiting “unnecessary noise” (a loud car stereo).  The defendant argued that the stop, which resulted in drug charges, was not justified by probable cause because the “unnecessary noise” ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague.” The Fourth Department determined the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it is tailored to the context of what can be heard more than 50 feet from a vehicle on a public highway and is sufficiently definite to put defendant on notice his conduct was forbidden:

Municipal ordinances “enjoy an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality’ ” …, and such legislative enactments “are to be construed so as to avoid constitutional issues if such a construction is fairly possible”… . “The void-for-vagueness doctrine embodies a rough idea of fairness’ ” …, and “an impermissibly vague ordinance is a violation of the due process of law” … . In addressing such a challenge, courts first “must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his [or her] contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute” … . “Second, the court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement”

* * * … [T]he City Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because the section under which defendant was convicted was tailored to a specific context—the creation of “unnecessary noise” beyond 50 feet of a motor vehicle on a public highway (City Ordinance § 40-16 [b]). In our view, “[w]hat is usual noise in the operation of a car [radio or other sound production device] has become common knowledge . . . and any ordinary motorist should have no difficulty in ascertaining” whether the noise in question violates the applicable standard … . Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the ordinance in question was “sufficiently definite” to put defendant on notice that his conduct was forbidden, and that it provided the police “with clear standards for enforcement” … . People v Stephens, 2015 NY Slip Op 03991, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

You might also like
A WHEEL CAME OFF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK CAUSING A FREAK ACCIDENT INVOLVING TWO OTHER VEHICLES RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A DRIVER; THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AT MOST, DEFENDANT FAILED TO PERCEIVE THE RISK CREATED BY A NOISY WHEEL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT COERCED INTO PLEADING GUILTY; THE JUDGE’S DESCRIBING THE POSSIBLE RANGE OF SENTENCING, PLEADING GUILTY TO AVOID A HARSHER SENTENCE, THE JUDGE’S COMMENTING ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE, AND COUNSEL’S TELLING DEFENDANT THE SENTENCE WOULD LIKELY BE HARSHER AFTER TRIAL, DID NOT AMOUNT TO “COERCION” (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
Juvenile Delinquency Petition Jurisdictionally Defective; Insufficient Allegations that Pills Were a Controlled Substance
Falling Off X-Ray Table Raised Question of Fact
17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING A WATER POLO GAME IN GYM CLASS; HIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS USURY, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION FINANCED THE SALE OF JEWELRY OVER MANY MONTHS, MARKETING THE SALES AS A WAY FOR CONSUMERS TO IMPROVE THEIR CREDIT; THE MAJORITY HELD THE BUSINESS MET THE DEFINITION OF A “CREDIT SERVICES BUSINESS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 458-H (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

County Department of Human Services Was Entitled to a Hearing On Whether It... Evidence Seized In Violation of Probationer’s Constitutional Rights Should...