Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1996 01:30 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 229 - PROHIBIT LOUD VEHICLE SOUND SYSTEMS The first order of business to come before the House Judiciary Committee was HB 229, "Prohibiting loud vehicle sound systems." The sponsor of the bill was introduced, Norman Rokeberg. Number 069 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG briefly reviewed the sponsor statement related to HB 229 and he added that this bill had already been heard in the HESS Committee. This legislation gives law enforcement a number of tools to enforce the peace and tranquility of neighborhoods. It's primary purpose is to limit the amount of amplified noise transmitted outside of a vehicle. Secondly, it reduces the hazards to emergency vehicles traversing through traffic by drivers unable to hear emergency vehicles warning signals. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that thirdly, residents should not be subjected to loud amplified sounds in their neighborhoods. Fourthly, this legislation allows the law enforcement agencies to ensure no additional laws are being broken, in other words, this would allow them to have probable cause to stop a vehicle which was emanating loud sounds, and help in the administration of other laws. It would meet constitutional tests for the gathering of evidence. Lastly, a number of elderly people will no longer have to be frightened by groups of people who use loud noises to intimidate them, which Representative Rokeberg said can happen. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that this bill was neighborhood friendly and would alleviate unwanted noises, while allowing people a means of recourse. A violation of this provision is an infraction not limited to a fine of $300, but also not considered a criminal offense. He also cited recent studies which show an alarming increase of hearing loss to young people. He noted the increased use of portable radios with ear phones may be responsible for this phenomenon as well. More specifically, he stated that the stereo systems installed in vehicles are what's being considered by this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the sound emanating from these vehicles can also be physically felt. In reviewing the statistics for this bill, he learned that 1000 megahertz of power can literally be felt. The City of Anchorage has an ordinance on it's books and in the interim, the City of Fairbanks has adopted a similar ordinance. It would be a state infraction to be cited for this offense. Also, Representative Rokeberg said constructive criticisms about this legislation resulted at the HESS committee hearing, hence a CS version of 229 was drafted, version C, dated 4/27/95 as referenced by Representative Rokeberg. Number 375 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved to adopt the CSHB 229, version C as the working document before the committee. Hearing no objection, this CS was adopted. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the CS added a provision for enforcing this law not only on an automobile driver, but also a parked vehicle along a highway or other public areas. There were some amendments recommended to the committee, one of which rectifies the effective date of the CS as inaccurate. Representative Davis provided the amendments noted. On amendment number two, Representative Rokeberg recognized it as a friendly amendment. It merely corrects the affective date. Representative Rokeberg asked for further discussion on amendment number one and opened up the floor for related questions. Number 460 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if the municipal ordinance was similar enough that it wouldn't affect HB 229. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said yes. The modifications to the bill were based on the ordinance in Anchorage and went one step further by providing the criteria of "a distance of fifty feet or more." This was consistent with the Anchorage and Fairbanks's ordinances. This would make it easier to enforce. Number 538 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he shared the same feelings as Representative Rokeberg on this issue, but his concern was that they shouldn't dictate to the rest of the state, most of which has local powers already in place to remedy these situations. The areas that don't have ordinances to remedy this situation are generally so rural, it's not an issue. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the areas which are not heavily urban, namely class A or second class cities, are under the jurisdiction of the State Troopers. This bill would make this a state law and a means to provide law enforcement a tool to enforce these types of infractions. When gathering public testimony, the North Star Borough said they would be very receptive to this legislation because their noise ordinance was not being enforced outside of the borough. Number 665 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE directed a question to the bill sponsor about the enforcement clause of the legislation. He thought that the fifty feet distance outlined in the bill was a very subjective judgment. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that this language was outlined in the amendment number two and the portion about "peace and tranquility" was slated to be deleted. He felt as though the fifty feet provision would help draw the standard to be completely empirical with judgment as to a police officer's view of fifty feet. This would do so without any further clouding of the language interpretatively as to the peace and tranquility of a geographic area. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY was sympathetic to the intent of the legislation, but felt as though it was a poorly crafted bill. He felt as though sound was a quantifiable energy which can be measured. He pointed out that the bill was nebulous and asked why Representative Rokeberg didn't take the approach of what the permissible sound levels would be. Representative Vezey noted the allowable levels of sound in the work place as law. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he appreciated Representative Vezey's editorial concerning the craftsmanship of the bill, however, to speak to the question, he didn't believe that law enforcement throughout the state should be required to carry a DP (decibels) meter in their possession, which would add further cost to the enforcement. This language is consistent with the ordinance already in effective in Anchorage, other state law and other jurisdictions. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said Representative Vezey was correct in that there are industrial safety standards based on decibel levels. In the context of a violation to be enforced by law enforcement personnel, he didn't feel it was appropriate to mandate a more stringent standard and also give a defendant the ability to challenge an offense because a law enforcement official was not carrying a DP meter in their car. He pointed out that it was for this reason that the legislation was drafted so artfully. Number 899 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterate his point by stating that the concept of audibility relates to the human ear and the function of background noise. If someone is in a neighborhood where the noise level is already high, an allowable noise level would be much higher than a rural neighborhood where the background level is much lower. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this was very true, especially when compared to a large jet way airport. This is a clear case where the judgment of a police officer on scene can determine whether the specific noise is emanating from an automobile as versus the background noise. He pointed out that certainly if there is other background noise, plus the noise heard from the car, then there's a problem exceeding any occupational DB levels that are accepted as hazardous to a human ear. Number 972 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if Representative Rokeberg anticipated that there would have to be a police officer's involvement in hearing such a violation before a case could be made or could a private citizen file a claim on their own. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG deferred to Chairman Porter's expertise. He likened this legislation to a speeding violation and asked if a citizen could make such an arrest. CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that yes, in the instance of a speeding violation, a citizen could file a citation through a police officer, as long as that officer thought there was probable cause. There would be a higher level of proof attached to this citation in a court of law though. Number 1059 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked would removing a muffler from a three- wheel vehicle be considered an amplification device. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded by stating that this bill specifically relates to sound amplification systems. He also added a comment to something Representative Vezey had asked earlier by stating that Juneau does not have an ordinance such as the precepts outlined in this pending legislation. This would allow the city and borough, as well as the state to enforce this legislation if passed. Number 1184 BILL PARKER, testified against HB 229. He felt as though Alaska has enough unenforceable laws in Alaska already and that they don't need anymore. Mr. Parker used the example of the seat belt law. He knew of no one who had ever been pulled over for this offense, unless they got into an accident. He also referred to the 50 foot criteria and used the example of a car with it's top down. Number 1258 SCOTT CALDER, agreed completely with Mr. Parker. He pointed out that if this legislation was about safety, a law enforcement official already has the power to intercede. He also mentioned disturbance of the peace laws already in effect. Mr. Calder didn't think it was necessary to create a separate pretext to determine probable cause. He felt the legislation would create an environment for harassment. Number 1409 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS then asked the sponsor whether or not he accepted the amendments as she proposed after the public testimony was closed. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he considered amendment number two to be a friendly one and in regards to amendment number one, he pointed out that the provision of the first line of the amendment where it reads [or the system disturbs the peace and tranquillity of another person], he felt as though this too was a friendly change to the bill. However, the portion below outlined under subsection 3, [; or a motor vehicle engaged in advertising otherwise permitted by law.], he wished to keep this language intact. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that this same language could be found in other similar ordinances as previously discussed. The intent is not to preclude common practices, such as advertizing in parades, etc. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to amendment this amendment, to allow for the language which Representative Rokeberg had requested to retain. CHAIRMAN PORTER referenced this language for the record in the text of the CS as existing on page one, line 9, the removal of the phrase, [or the system disturbs the peace and tranquillity of another person]. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move this amendment as amended to read as follows, "more feet. This subsection does not apply to (1) a person operating a sound amplification system to request emergency assistance or to warn of a hazardous condition; (2) an emergency or police motor vehicle; or (3) a motor vehicle engaged in advertising otherwise permitted by law." Hearing no objections, amendment number one was so moved. Number 1580 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to move amendment number two as follows, "Sec. 2 This Act takes effect July 1, 1996." Hearing no objections, amendment number two was also moved. Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN brought up a question which related to amendment number one. He wondered if this legislation would preclude someone from using megaphones to advertize from their vehicle. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt as though this issue could be dealt with on a local level depending on what the local ordinances allowed. The intention was not to disallow this type of activity. This was why subsection number 3 was included in this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN questioned the utility of such legislation since someone who is not allowed to blast music from the inside of their car could easily mount megaphones on the top of their car to blast music instead. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out again that this activity would be covered by permit and additional ordinances as a way to manage this activity under local jurisdictions. He added that not to include this language would trample on First Amendment rights. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that these large car sound systems are more serious than someone just playing their radio too loudly. He questioned the benefit to the general public related to this activity as versus the loudness of an airport, for example. An airport is loud, but it is a required benefit to society. Number 1807 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out the example of an ice cream truck as possibly falling under this legislation. Representative Finkelstein agreed and asked Representative Rokeberg how he could philosophically justify this bill in the context of ice cream trucks where the broadcasting of music is clearly allowed. How could one activity be legislated and not the other. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG appreciated this question and that it goes to the purpose of this bill. He pointed out that this legislation is directed to automobiles which cruise the streets and urban areas with fighting gangs. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that the hearing of the young is in serious jeopardy. He understood that the legislature can't protect people from themselves, if they choose to destroy their hearing, but this legislation would help in discouraging this type of behavior. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 229 as amended, version (C) from committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection the bill was so moved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|