HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 6625 ARC CODE NOISES
Augusta Richmond GA
DOCUMENT NAME: 0 - am ~ ~lad5
DOCUMENT TYPE: ax d \ \\G.\\C-~
YEAR: D~
BOX NUMBER: \9
FILE NUMBER: \ l.o~DI
NUMBER OF PAGES: D
" . .:~, .
ORDINANCE NO. 6625
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AUGUST A-RICHMOND
COUNTY CODE SECTION 3-6-2 ENUMERA TED
PROffiBITED NOISES BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (b)
THEREOF WHICH REGULATES RADIOS,
PHONOGRAPHS, AND SIMILAR DEVISES; TO PROVIDE
AN EFFECTIVE DATE; TO REPEAL CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
COMMISSION, AND IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE AUTHORlTY OF
SAME AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Augusta-Richmond County Code, Section 3-6-2, Subsection (b), is hereby
amended by deleting the current Section 3-6-2 (b) and substituting in lieu thereof the following
prohibition of noises associated with "Radios, phonographs, similar devices" such that it shall
read:
"~ 3-6-2
PROHIBITED NOISES ENUMBERATED.
(b). Radios, phonographs, similar devices. The using, operating or permitting to
be played, used or operated of any radio receiving set, musical instrument,
phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound
in a maImer as to disturb the comfort, health, peace or safety of reasonable
neighboring inhabitants of ordinary sensibilities. The operation of any set,
instrument, phonograph, machine or device between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and
7:00 a. m. in manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from
the building, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be a prima facie
evidence of a violation of this section.
L ..
Section 2.
All laws or ordinances or parts of laws or ordinances in conflict with this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 3.
If any section, provision, or clause of any part of this Ordinance be
declared invalid or unconstitutional, or if the provisions of any part of this Ordinance as applied
to any particular situation or set of circwnstances be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such
invalidity shall not be construed to affect portions of this Ordinance not so held to be invalid, or
the application of this Ordinance to other circumstances not so held to be invalid. It is hereby
declared as the intent that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such invalid portion not
been included herein.
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
Duly adopted this ~ day of 9--4
,2003.
, 2003 and this
day of
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION
~y: ~~~6
1ts~
'!fA ~A/
CI rk
First Reading:
1- / S_ 0,'
Second Reading: lIJIb ~ ~
Published in the Augusta Chronicle July 24, 2003
, J
~
i
r......
I,
I
I
~
L.. '
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF
1=
RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
I
c-,
RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA
~'::: c:
-'. ;-:t'
VS,
ORDINANCE VIOLATION:
EXCESSIVE NOISE
r.~,
.. -.'.,
.-'" '-'
-.J
'-i
CECIL HERBERT BARNES
ORDER
The above-captioned matter having come on for trial before this Court sitting \vithout a
jury on May 30, 2003, at which time evidence and argument were presented, the Court finds the
following:
Defendant is an owner of and operates the Red Wing Rollerway, a skating rink, located
on Washington Road.
Over a period of some months, certain of the residential neighbors of that business have
suffered from the noise emanating from the skating rink at various times, including late hours.
The offending noise is the amplified bass from a sound system within the Defendant's
establishment.
At trial, upon the close of the State's case in chief, Defendant moved the Court for a
Directed Verdict of Acquittal based upon the assertion that the ordinance in question is
unconstitutional due to its vagueness, Augusta Richmond County Ordinance 3-6-2(b) states in
pertinent pmi, "The following acts are declared to be loud, ~isturbins, and unnecessary noises in
violation of this chapter., . (T)he using, operating or permitting to be played, used or operated of
(sic) any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the
producing or reproducing of sound in a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the
-
neighboring inhabitants. . ."
:?
in assessing the constitutionality ofa law (or ordinance) where it has been challenged for
vagueness, there is "greater tolerance of enactments with ci vii rather than criminal penalties
because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe." Satterfield vs. The State,
260 Ga. 427, 428, citing Village of Hoffman Estates vs. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.c.
1186 (1982).
The Court also must consider that the ordinance in question is applicable to speech:
Laws touching on First Amendment rights have traditionally been subjected to more intense
scrutiny. Kevishian vs. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589,604,87 S.C. 675 (1967).
"As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define
the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what
conduct is prohibited and in a maImer that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement." Kolender \IS, Lawson, 461 U.S, 352,357, 103 S,c. 1855 (1983).
Additionally, "A statute is tmconstitutionally vague when the standard of conduct it
specifies is dependent upon the individualized sensitivity of each complainant." Thelen VS, State
272 Ga, 81,83, citing Nichols vs. City of Gulfport 589 S2d 1280, 1284 (1991).
in applying these standards to that pOltion of the ordinance in question, we see that the
language at issue is fatally vague, "(D)isturb", like "annoy", and the adjectives "unnecessary"
and "unusual" modifying the noun "noises" could be said to have an unconstitutional elasticity of
meaning. See Thelen supra at 82 citing Nichols, supra at 1283, and United Pentacostal Church
vs, Steendam, 214 NW2d 866, 867 (1974), That which is disturbing to the peace, quiet and
comfort of one individual may not be so to another.
.
"..
,.
For these reasons, this Court finds that the portion of the Ordinance in question violates
the due process rights guaranteed by our State and Federal Constitutions,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict of Acquittal be and is
hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED THIS C/ d" DAY OF JUNE, 2003.
~~'~'
WILLlA . JENNINGS, III
CHIEF JUDGE OF CIVIL AND
MAGISTRATE COURT, RICHMOND
COUNTY, GEORGIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii