Opinion ID: 2302690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendant's Alleged Violation and His Motion to Dismiss

Text: On February 6, 2009, defendant filed in the Providence Municipal Court a claim of appeal to the Superior Court with respect to a ruling that had been made by the Municipal Court on January 21, 2009. In that ruling, a judge of the Municipal Court had found that defendant was guilty of a charge filed by the City of Providence, which charge alleged that defendant had violated § 16-93 as a result of the emanation of loud music from [his] veh[icle]. The fine that was assessed for that violation was $200. Thereafter, defendant filed in the Superior Court a motion to dismiss the alleged charge on the grounds that the ordinance was void and unenforceable as a matter of law. Specifically, defendant contended that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, thereby violating both article 1, section 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution [2] and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; [3] defendant also averred that the ordinance was preempted by state statutory law. On July 14, 2009, a hearing was held in the Superior Court on the motion to dismiss. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the hearing justice declined to dismiss the charge on the ground of preemption. The hearing justice based his rejection of the preemption argument on (1) article 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution [4] and (2) the hearing justice's conclusion that the ordinance was not inconsistent with state law and that there is at least some ability under [the] General Laws    for cities and towns to regulate noise. With respect to defendant's constitutional arguments, the hearing justice opined that the ordinance was particularly well drafted. The hearing justice made particular note of the fact that the ordinance contains specific components with regard to decibel levels at 200 feet. Accordingly, the hearing justice denied the motion to dismiss. C