People v. Street, 27 N.Y.3d 309 (2016)
A noise ordinance that defines “unnecessary noise” using an objective standard of “a reasonable person of normal sensibilities” is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate due process.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether Syracuse’s noise ordinance, prohibiting “unnecessary noise” from motor vehicles, was unconstitutionally vague. The court held the ordinance constitutional, distinguishing it from a previously invalidated ordinance. The Syracuse ordinance defined “unnecessary noise” using an objective “reasonable person” standard, providing sufficient clarity to give fair notice of prohibited conduct and to guide law enforcement. The court emphasized that noise regulations often require broadly stated definitions but must still meet constitutional standards. The decision reaffirmed that such regulations are constitutional if they define noise by an objective standard and are tailored to a specific context.
Facts
Police stopped the defendant’s vehicle because they believed the car stereo was creating noise heard beyond 50 feet, violating Syracuse Noise Ordinance § 40-16(b). During the stop, police discovered crack cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which the trial court denied. Defendant was subsequently convicted of violating the noise ordinance. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it used an objective standard, and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Procedural History
The defendant was charged in a local court with violating the Syracuse Noise Ordinance, as well as drug possession. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the drug evidence, and convicted the defendant of violating the ordinance. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the ordinance constitutional. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
- Whether Syracuse Noise Ordinance § 40-16(b) is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause.
Holding
- No, because the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied a two-part test to determine if the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, examining whether the statute gives fair notice that the conduct is forbidden and provides clear standards for enforcement. The court found that the Syracuse ordinance, unlike the one in People v. New York Trap Rock Corp., used an objective standard—what a “reasonable person of normal sensibilities” would find disturbing—when defining “unnecessary noise.” The court noted that this objective standard distinguishes the ordinance from the subjective, vague standards that were found unconstitutional in Trap Rock, thereby providing sufficient notice and standards for enforcement. The court emphasized that the ordinance was tailored to the specific context of noise from motor vehicles on public highways. The court also noted that the ordinance did not contain the problematic “without limiting the above language” clause found in the prior case that had led to the ordinance being declared unconstitutional.
Practical Implications
This case provides guidance on drafting and analyzing noise ordinances. It confirms that noise ordinances, while needing to be broadly defined, must employ objective standards to avoid being found unconstitutionally vague. The ruling underscores the importance of using a “reasonable person” standard and limiting the scope of the ordinance to a specific context. This decision helps law enforcement, municipalities, and practitioners understand the parameters of constitutionally permissible noise regulations and how to avoid the vagueness challenges that can arise in this area. The case emphasizes the importance of careful drafting to avoid the pitfalls identified in earlier cases such as Trap Rock.