Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Thought on the following, for or against, needed modifications?
Current county code;
"Article 3. Noise Control.
Section 14-17. Definition.
(a) As used in this article, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(1) “Machine or device for reproducing sound” includes any magnifying sound instrument used in the production or replication of music, spoken words, or other sounds, other sound amplification designed to enlarge the volume of sound produced by any instrument or by the human voice. (1975 C.C., c. 6, art. 11, sec. 12; Am. 1990, Ord. No. 90-65, sec. 2.)14-17
Section 14-18. Use of sound reproducing devices in public areas.
(a) It shall be a violation of law for any person or persons to play, use, operate, or permit to be played, used, or operated, any radio, tape recorder, cassette player, or other machine or device for reproducing sound, if:
(1) Such machine or device is located in or on: (A) Any public property, including any public street, highway, building, sidewalk, park, or thoroughfare; or (B) Any motor vehicle on a public street, highway, or public space; and
(2) The sound generated by such machine or device is audible at a distance of fifty feet from the machine or device producing the sound. (b) Possession by a person or persons of any of the machines or devices enumerated in subsection (a) shall be prima facie evidence that that person, or those persons, operated the machine or device at the time in question, in violation of this section. (1975 C.C., c. 6, art. 11, sec. 11; Am. 1990, Ord. No. 90-65, sec. 2.)"
Proposed addition -
Section 14-18.5. Use of sound reproducing devices on private property.
(a) It shall be a violation of law for any person or persons to play, use, operate, or permit to be played, used, or operated, any radio, tape recorder, cassette player, or other machine or device for reproducing sound, if:
(1) The sound generated is audible on neighboring private residential, agricultural or public properties.
*Needs an exemption for commercial property such as licensed night clubs etc.
Posts: 14,138
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Noise limit is already 70dB for Ag-zoned lands.
Coqui frogs are 90dB.
There is no enforcement of the existing law; writing more laws will not help.
Posts: 4,301
Threads: 100
Joined: Mar 2014
No enforcement - as in the motorcycles with mufflers removed.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Kalakoa,
The officer claim they don't have decibel meters issued them and if they did, they would have to be calibrated and they'd have to run an ambient background test first, etc. That would require additional training and more money for equipment etc. The decibel law was written in accordance with minimum standards in mind and are poised more for industrial based sources.
The state made it clear that each county had the power to strengthen the noise abatement laws but could not decrease their restrictive intent.
By using the term audible vs. an indecipherable decibel measure by human ear and not originally intended for the scope of typical private property noise intrusions. The enforcement of the law becomes reasonably determinable for each officer without need for fancy equipment.
70dB is an extraordinary level of sound and again aimed at industrial source activity.
The current public property aspect of the law is often enforced but it doesn't currently extend into private property intrusions. The number of calls for such intrusions is up there and had they an law to work with, they could generate some additional revenues for the County as the penalties can get stiff very quickly for repeat offenders.
Posts: 14,138
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The officer claim they don't have decibel meters issued them and if they did, they would have to be calibrated and they'd have to run an ambient background test first, etc. That would require additional training and more money for equipment etc.
In other words, "enforcement is hard" and/or they had no intention of actually enforcing the law? Because it would be really hard.
The current public property aspect of the law is often enforced but it doesn't currently extend into private property intrusions.
Such as a "privately owned public road" -- which is open to enforcement of traffic rules under 24-1 HCC, but the noise isn't a traffic issue, so it's magically a "private property intrusion" which HPD need not bother enforcing.
Rules and laws, they're for everyone, you know.
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
The police only show up about half of the time when called on what they consider "nuisance" complaints. I got that fact from a police captain who didn't even seem to think it was a problem. Another officer told me it was more like a third of the time. Dream on, W.N.K.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
All these private road subdivisions really tossed a monkey wrench into the intent of many codes, even though they've tried to correct it with 24-1 HCC.
As per when an officer is not willing to enforce a law, a call to the prosecutors office to file the complaint instead of to police dispatch typically gets the ball rolling. I've seen that magic button pushed by a few people and it seems to work well.
Posts: 14,138
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
All these private road subdivisions really tossed a monkey wrench into the intent of many codes
Exactly, almost as if it was intentionally designed for the "private" subdivisions to pay taxes but receive no services -- free money for County.
Posts: 4,301
Threads: 100
Joined: Mar 2014
One doesn't need a decibel meter to see that a moped or motorcycle has had the stock exhaust altered/removed, which IS against the law and those vehicles should not ever pass a safety check.
Posts: 2,389
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Just in case this wasn't known as it appears to have never been brought up in previous threads regarding the noise subject. The State does have a noise law on the books that deals with basic nuisance noises.
It falls under Disorderly Conduct as seen here in 1-b and people have been convicted of the offence for making noise here on the big island. I know of one case in particular up the street from us that occurred a couple years back. It seems like a hard core way to deal with noise and thus a simple county ordinance that's more of an infraction and fine is a more reasonable approach in my opinion. A disorderly conduct charge is harsh IMO but then again it's the only currently available recourse.
"§711-1101 Disorderly conduct. (1) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause physical inconvenience or alarm by a member or members of the public, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
© Subjects another person to offensively coarse behavior or abusive language which is likely to provoke a violent response;
(d) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which is not performed under any authorized license or permit; or
(e) Impedes or obstructs, for the purpose of begging or soliciting alms, any person in any public place or in any place open to the public.
(2) Noise is unreasonable, within the meaning of subsection (1)(b), if considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to the person, including the nature of the location and the time of the day or night, the person's conduct involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding citizen would follow in the same situation; or the failure to heed the admonition of a police officer that the noise is unreasonable and should be stopped or reduced.
The renter, resident, or owner-occupant of the premises who knowingly or negligently consents to unreasonable noise on the premises shall be guilty of a noise violation.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a petty misdemeanor if it is the defendant's intention to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if the defendant persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a violation. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 136, §9(a); am L 1974, c 164, §1; am L 1978, c 182, §1; am L 1979, c 79, §1; gen ch 1993; am L 2003, c 48, §2]"
|
