 Noise Ordinance Decision is available Here |
| Criminal Defense | Noise Law Struck |
Defense Attorney / Lawyer in Tampa, Florida has completed a review of the recent declaration by a Florida Appeals Court that Florida Statute 316.3045(1)(a) was unconstitutional. The Traffic law made operation of radios or other mechanical sound making devices or instruments in vehicle plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the vehicle illegal.
The court found the statute unconstitutional. The statute exempted business and political speech and the exemptions do not serve a compelling state interest, the statute is not content-neutral, and is an unconstitutional suppression of protected speech.
Is the Law in your Traffic Case Valid? Call Me Toll Free to Discuss. 1-877-793-9290 .
“Additionally, while recognizing our agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the circuit court, we note that section 316.3045 suffers from a more fundamental infirmity. ”
“A case that is directly on point, and was cited favorably in Cannon, is People v. Jones, 721 N.E.2d 546 (Ill. 1999). In that case, the court held that a sound amplification statute, which prohibited the use of sound amplification systems in motor vehicles that could be heard from a specified distance away from a vehicle and which contained an exception for vehicles engaged in advertising, was a content-based regulation of speech, in violation of the First Amendment.”
“Turning our attention to the Florida statute at issue, on its face it is not content neutral. The statute excepts from its provisions “motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices.” § 316.3045(3). In other words, an individual using a vehicle for business purposes could, for example, listen to political talk radio at a volume clearly audible from a quarter mile; however, an individual sitting in a personal vehicle that is parked next to the business vehicle is subject to a citation if the individual is listening to music or religious programming that is clearly audible at twenty-five feet. Clearly, different forms of speech receive different treatment under the Florida statute. That is, the statute in question does not “apply equally to music, political speech and advertising,” which is what the Supreme Court requires in order for the statute to be deemed, “content-neutral.” See City of Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 428.”
“Additionally, we conclude that the statute is a content-based restriction on free expression which violates the First Amendment.”
Is the Law in your Traffic Case Valid? Call Me Toll Free to Discuss. 1-877-793-9290 .