Opinion ID: 77679
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the Ordinance Fail to Provide Clear Enforcement Standards?

Text: 81 Nevertheless, the overarching standard at play in this ordinance is the reasonable personable standard since the statute begins by prohibiting unreasonably loud, excessive, unnecessary or unusual noises. The Supreme Court has approved the use of the word unreasonably in statutes that are otherwise precise and narrowly drawn. Reeves, 631 F.2d. at 386 (citing Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 615-16, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968)). 82 Here, the County noise ordinance also provides an additional standard to guide those tasked with enforcing the ordinance. The additional standard is phrased as a rebuttable presumption. Operating a sound reproduction device between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the building, structure or vehicle in which it is located is considered prima facie evidence of a violation under section 21-28(b). This is an objective standard. Thus, we find that the language of the ordinance does not carry an inherent risk of arbitrary enforcement either, and we affirm the district court ruling that the County noise ordinance is not void for vagueness. 83