City Council says yes to an officer removing a car stereo that's too noisy.

[Dirk]

(Lorain)- Lorain City Council and more than two thousand residents want to crack down on car stereo boomers.

Resident Denise Caruloff has been fighting for seven years to get an ordinance passed to increase fines and penalties for offenders.

Fines have gone up and the officer would have the option to remove the stereo on the first offense under an ordinance that was passed Tuesday night by City Council. Caruloff says this isn't someone going down the street playing their stereo, the music has to be audible from 50 feet.

Mayor Tony Krasienko has not yet signed or vetoed the ordinance, he has 10 days.

Some people think she is going too far when there are other problems in the city. But Caruloff say, loud stereos promote aggression. She says when offenders are pulled over officers find drugs and weapons. There was even the officer in Twinsburg who was shot in the head as he followed a loud music offender.

Caruloff hopes the changes will make people think twice about what she calls "audio assault."

[Twan007]

argument on both sides -

you're seizing private property for an offense that is a nuisance...

we seize marijuana on first offenses upon arrests all the time to use as evidence...



I think it's a slippery slope that needs to be approached very very cautiously...

[pgg]

I doubt its going to survive any challenges but I do like it. I wish I could do that to every person I hear playing rap. Of course whenever I pull these guys over they usually have dope, or warrants, or no license, or something else. We do have a CVC section for noise heard from an automobile

[Five-0]

This is bullshit. Seizing marijuana for possession of an illegal substance for evidence is one thing. Seizing property without due process is another thing.

[jmur5074]

I'm with Five-0.


Your seizing private property that can be used legally (by turning the volume down).


This is overkill and ridiculous.

[213th]

I'm with Five-0.


Your seizing private property that can be used legally (by turning the volume down).


This is overkill and ridiculous.

That's how I see it. They have the right to challenge the (ticket I'm assuming) so, until they lose that, I don't see how taking it can be legal. Kinda like forcing someone to pay a traffic ticket on site. They do have the right to take it to court if they so desire.

[Twan007]

ok - then play with this one - seizing a Bud Light for Open Container (which in my city is a misdemeanor just like Loud Music, 1st Poss of Marijuana, etc.) - we seize the alcohol to use as evidence of actual alcoholic beverage...

why would you seize a gun used in an armed robbery? if the suspect bought the gun legally and has no prior felonies or other excluding factors, then it is also legal private property that is being seized just because it is being used in the process of a crime



I can see both sides of it, not saying that marijuana was the only example, just the first thing I could think of (just like these two are quick responses) - the concept is - if private property is being used in the commission of a crime... can that private property be seized...


and as I said - it is a slippery slope that I don't know if we as a society should be trying to climb right now...

[CTR man]

I can't help but wonder if the people that choose to play their music so blasted loud have developed some sort of permanent hearing loss.

Ticket the hell out of them if you can, but confiscating their stereo system seems a bit redundant to me if this law passes. They'll just install another one. Maybe they'll learn not to play their music so loud.

[Twan007]

lol, love ya ctr - but the marijuana smokers learn to stop smoking, and the OC's learn to stop carrying around open beer bottles, and... well the list keeps going =/

unfortunately the only way that stuff like this will change, is if the status quo that they are attempting to emulate changes...

but oh how I wish it would work... I'm sick and tired of it rattling the mirrors off of my car... almost as much as I'm sick and tired of seeing boxer shorts because pants are hanging down so low...

[Car 4]

This is bullshit. Seizing marijuana for possession of an illegal substance for evidence is one thing. Seizing property without due process is another thing.

I am also with 5-O....in my jurisdiction, loud music isn't even a Gross Misdemeanor. Seizing something legally attached to a motor vehicle without some form of due process is just pushing the limit IMO. And how do you remove the stereo? In my shop, we can't even give someone a jump off of our patrol unit or use a slim-jim to unlock a door because of the liability it may cause. Try explaining a broken dashboard and torn wiring to the subjects lawyer and your department legal advisor.

Utter nonsense which any 2nd year law student could beat in Appellate Court.

Car 4

[CTR man]

lol, love ya ctr - but the marijuana smokers learn to stop smoking, and the OC's learn to stop carrying around open beer bottles, and... well the list keeps going =/

I know, living in a perfect world is next to impossible. Some people never learn.

[Five-0]

ok - then play with this one - seizing a Bud Light for Open Container (which in my city is a misdemeanor just like Loud Music, 1st Poss of Marijuana, etc.) - we seize the alcohol to use as evidence of actual alcoholic beverage...

Simple. You have to preserve the evidence for court. Plus if you leave an open Bud Light on the street Little Johnny might come by after the fact and become a minor in possession of alcohol. Community caretaking is another reason for seizing the brew.

why would you seize a gun used in an armed robbery? if the suspect bought the gun legally and has no prior felonies or other excluding factors, then it is also legal private property that is being seized just because it is being used in the process of a crime

Again Community Caretaking. Can't leave the gun with the Armed Robbery suspect, and you can't leave it on the street for Little Johnny. Hell, he's already drunk and you want to give the little bastard a gun?

I can see both sides of it, not saying that marijuana was the only example, just the first thing I could think of (just like these two are quick responses) - the concept is - if private property is being used in the commission of a crime... can that private property be seized...

Try this side on for size. The city is saying seize the property and not the person. You are not going to be justified by the above mentioned Community Caretaking. If you take that stereo and lay in on the sidewalk the community is not in danger. You have simply deprived someone of their individual property without due process.

and as I said - it is a slippery slope that I don't know if we as a society should be trying to climb right now...

You are dead on here Twan. This is one of the reasons I will never work for another Municipal agency again. Stupid BS ordinances. They better give every officer a 50' measuring tape to defend thier actions to be in accordance with the oridinance too. Next thing you know my Obama is a Socialist or Bush is a moron T-shirt will be deamed to cause gasp "aggressive behavior". Next thing you know, some do gooder city council is seizing my shirt. NO THANKS.

[TXCharlie]

I think they could use the excuse that they're seizing it for evidence pending trial, but I think a maxed-out Class C Misdemeanor fine would be sufficient to discourage it. That's $500 around here, which might be 1/4th the cost of a new amplifier.

Some of them will increase that with Failures to Appear, etc - I've seen little $200 tickets wind up costing 10 times that much with High School and College-age kids, plus the Town Marshal has fun picking them up at school or work in front of all their friends and supervisors.

[Twan007]

lol - love ya five-0

I don't think we should take the stuff - hell, for me if you take it, that's a summons that I can't write and court time that I miss out on b/c I'll pop him again tomorrow for the same thing

kinda like window tint - I don't get them to rip it off right there... that's just plain ole' dumb...

but it's always fun to see how much of either side I can argue (keeps me on my toes for some of the idiots at work who always "what if" situations to death)


and TX-Charlie - we don't have different classes of misdemeanors and felonies... it's one or the other (that always trips me out) - there's different penalties for each, but it's written into the individual law what the penalty is

[TXCharlie]

But you're not stealing his stuff, you're "arresting" his stereo - It can get out on bail I assume

[Five-0]

lol - love ya five-0

I don't think we should take the stuff - hell, for me if you take it, that's a summons that I can't write and court time that I miss out on b/c I'll pop him again tomorrow for the same thing

kinda like window tint - I don't get them to rip it off right there... that's just plain ole' dumb...

but it's always fun to see how much of either side I can argue (keeps me on my toes for some of the idiots at work who always "what if" situations to death)

It's all good bro. I would settle for the courts handling their end of the judicial process with me enforcing the laws that are currently on the books in my state criminal code. Believe me when I put my mind to it I can give problem people special attention and handle problems in my jurisdiction. Personally I like having readily avaliable PC to initiate stops and make contacts. Like you said, tint, tag lights ect work. Let me find the contraband, warrants ect and I'll have the whole damn car incident to arrest more times than not. Me giving special attention:

[Dirk]

I think they could use the excuse that they're seizing it for evidence pending trial,...

Are you serious? What is the actual stereo evidence of, the fact that he had a stereo, which COULD possibly be played loud? I am guessing you also plan on turning on the stereo in court somehow to prove it could be played that loud to justify your seizure?

The stereo possession isn't illegal so just bringing in the stereo for trial isn't doing anything but proving he had a stereo, which nearly every car has. If the stereo was illegal in and of itself, I could understand it. But it's not. So your theory is ridiculous.

[Cidp24]

Our ordinance is fairly simple and has worked pretty well. It is a violation to play the music any louder than is needed for convenient hearing inside the car. Pretty much, if you can hear it outside the car, it's illegal.

I don't think they are going to get away with taking the stereos for long and they are begging to be sued.

[lewisipso]

I was having trouble with a certain suspect and his loud music eons ago and had warned and ticketed him several times to no avail. His step father worked for the city and the tickets never saw court. I did pull him over again cited him and seized his stereo, amp, and every speaker in it including all the wires and connections except for the battery and tagged it as evidence. That got the city's attention. The case was brought to the attention of a judge and he and I had a private counsel. I was told that technically I was not in violation but that there was no way a prosecutor would present the case. I was advised not to do it again. That was advice I took to heart. I figured if a judge was telling me it wasn't a good idea there must be something to it.
Seeing as how citations and summones don't make it to court and apparently the citizens have no rights to not have their senses blasted by loud noise some folks define as "music" I resorted to arresting the driver and towing the vehicle. Which I have done on several occassions.


Louisiana Revised Statute
§14:103.1. Emanation of excessive sound or noise; exceptions; penalties
A. No person shall operate or permit the operation of any sound amplification system which emanates unreasonably loud or excessive sound or noise which is likely to cause inconvenience or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities, when both the following exist:
(1) The sound amplification system is located in or on any motor vehicle on a public street, highway, or public park.
(2) The sound or noise emanating from the sound amplification system is audible at a distance of greater than twenty-five feet which exceeds eighty-five decibels. (after my incident we were provided decibel meters)

B. The provisions of this Section do not apply to the use of a horn, alarm, or other warning device which has as its purpose the signaling of unsafe or dangerous situations or to summon the assistance of law enforcement when used for such purpose, or when used in conjunction with a permitted event.
C. Whoever violates a provision of this Section shall be fined two hundred dollars for a first offense, and not less than three hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for second and subsequent offenses.
D.(1) Upon conviction for a first offense, the court may order the violator to surrender to the law enforcement agency that arrested the violator or reported the violation the driver's license of the driver involved in the violation for a period not to exceed thirty days. The violator shall be responsible for the retrieval of his driver's license from the law enforcement agency after the expiration of the period of surrender.
(2) Upon conviction for a second or subsequent offense, the court may order the violator to surrender to the law enforcement agency that arrested the violator or reported the violation the driver's license of the driver involved in the violation for a period not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days. The violator shall be responsible for the retrieval of his driver's license from the law enforcement agency after the expiration of the period of surrender.
E. A governing authority of a parish or municipality may enact an ordinance consistent with the provisions of this Section and shall incorporate the standards and elements of the crime, and the penalty provided in the ordinance shall not exceed the penalty provided in this Section.
Acts 1997, No. 811, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1998; Acts 2005, No. 490, §1; Acts 2008, No. 94, §1.


Certain levels of "music" I will tolerate but when it rattles windows of homes or isn't just passing by is a problem. And anyone who doesn't believe this crap rattles windows is welcome to witness it for themselves at my home.
More times than not this violation relates to the crap that is commonly referred to as rap. Even though, I do not limit myself to just rap violators. I am an equal opportunity enforcer. If I have a meter with me and it's over 85....
I have yet to make it to court on a case and I wait in great anticipation in doing so. Of course I doubt it. Most cases are dropped, depending on who you are or are related to or it's pled out. Either way I am in agreement that seizing car radios is probably not a good idea. Just seize the driver if they can't seem to understand "turn that shit off or else."

[Odd]

Ordinances like this may be satisfying for the town council members to pass, but what is that worth?

Is it worth the distrust and mocking of law and law enforcement such over reaching ordinances create? If so, keep at it.