People v. New York Trap Rock Corp., 57 N.Y.2d 371 (1982)

A noise ordinance that broadly prohibits “unnecessary noise” without providing clear and objective standards for enforcement is unconstitutionally vague, violating due process requirements of fair notice and preventing arbitrary enforcement.

Summary

New York Trap Rock Corporation was convicted of violating a town noise ordinance for nighttime loading operations at its quarry. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance broadly defined “unnecessary noise” as any sound that “annoys” or “disturbs,” and provided a list of non-exclusive factors for determining a violation. The court found that the ordinance lacked sufficient clarity to inform citizens of prohibited conduct and invited arbitrary enforcement by law enforcement officials.

Facts

New York Trap Rock Corporation operated a quarry in the Town of Poughkeepsie. The quarry had been in operation for many years and was a significant source of crushed stone. The quarry operated on two shifts, including a nighttime shift that involved loading stone. After a residential subdivision was developed near the quarry, the corporation erected a large berm to minimize noise and visual impact. Three residents filed criminal complaints about noise from the quarry’s nighttime loading operations.

Procedural History

The New York Trap Rock Corporation was convicted in Justice Court for violating the town’s Unnecessary Noise Control Ordinance. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the town’s noise ordinance is preempted by or inconsistent with state law.

2. Whether the town’s noise ordinance is unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process.

Holding

1. No, because the state law does not demonstrate an intent to restrict local regulation of noise, and the Municipal Home Rule Law encourages reconciliation of state and local laws.

2. Yes, because the ordinance’s definition of “unnecessary noise” lacks objective standards, fails to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct, and invites arbitrary enforcement.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals first addressed the preemption argument, finding no indication that the state legislature intended to restrict the town’s authority to enact a noise ordinance. The Municipal Home Rule Law grants broad authority to local governments regarding safety, health, and well-being. The court emphasized that unless the state demonstrates a clear intent to preempt local legislation, local laws are permissible.

Regarding the vagueness challenge, the court emphasized that a statute must be informative on its face to allow citizens to conform their conduct to the law. Noise regulations pose unique challenges, requiring a balance between broad prohibitions and constitutional conformity. The court found the ordinance to be impermissibly vague because it defined “unnecessary noise” as “any excessive or unusually loud sound or any sound which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a person.” The Court reasoned that this definition could lead to a conviction based solely on whether a sound annoys another person, dependent on the “malice or animosity of a cantankerous neighbor.”

The court also found that the ten “standards” provided in the ordinance for determining “unnecessary noise” were abstract and subjective, providing no concrete guidance for individuals to comply with the law. Because the “standards” were non-exclusive, the court questioned how a defendant could know where to begin. The court concluded that the ordinance’s pervasive catchall effect made it ripe for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, rendering it unconstitutional.

“[U]nless by its terms a law is clear and positive, it leaves virtually unfettered discretion in the hands of law enforcement officials.”