Loud Stereo? Lose Your Car - Can We Get This Law in Boston?

Some of the laws Radley Balko highlights in "There Oughtta Be a Law" are ridiculous, but confiscating cars for loud stereos isn't one of them - it is a good idea, and one I've been suggesting for years.  The proliferation of obnoxiously-loud car stereos is extreme, and there is little enforcement and generally few effective penalties.

Policing the over-loud car stereo is a proper use of government power, I think.  It is the sort of thing that cannot be left to self-policing through social interaction.  The people whose stereos so offend are precisely the people who disregard societal mores in favor of their own gratification, ignorant of or apathetic to their impact on others.  They are unlikely to be swayed by mere disapproval or some PSAs. Taking their cars, on the other hand, would get their attention. I wish Boston had such an ordinance.

Comments

[jo]

This is off topic, but if anyone can appreciate this, it would be you. Tonight on my home up Route 2 I saw my third brand spankin' new mustang GT pulled over and getting at ticket.
I think we need some sort of tally sheet.
It's like the old days when Trans Am's and Corvette's littered the shoulder getting all the attention of the boys in blue while the rest of us slunk by.

[T.J. Brown]

So for the crime of being obnoxious, you want to deprive someone of his property without due process?

Perhaps we should amputate the legs of jaywalkers as well.

[carpundit]

Why do you think there would be no due process? Any such ordinance should include a meaningful avenue of appeal. Like any other citation, there should be an optional hearing, and a right of appeal to an appellate body (a court, say) if aggrieved by the result.

Amputating legs is a bogus analogy, but I assume you knew that when you wrote it.

[T.J. Brown]

Due process should include a right to jury trial before any confiscation takes place.

Yes amputating legs is an exaggerated analogy, but how about evicting people from the homes they own upon the first noise complaint?

How about confiscating cars upon the first speeding offense? Or the first parking violation?

I don't like obnoxiously loud cars, and a fine is appopriate.

[carpundit]

I know of no constitutional right to a jury trial for such deprivation of property, and I do not support one in this instance.

Evicting someone from his home is not quite as extreme as your leg theory, but it's close, bearing no rational relationship to the conduct at issue. Confiscating the home stereo would be a closer analog. (And no, I don't think confiscating the car stereo is sufficient to deter loud car stereo violators.)

Confiscating the car for speeding is a far better analog. I do not support that, but it would not be any more or less constitutionally-sound than confiscating the car for noise. Parking is the same. The ordinances generally don't allow cars to be confiscated until there are a certain number of tickets, or of unpaid tickets, but I think that reflects the revenue-raising goal of such tickets rather than any earnest effort to enforce parking regs.

Unlike you, I think confiscation is appropriate. If I were voting on such a law, I would consider supporting a measure allowing fine-only for the first offense.

[T.J. Brown]

"I know of no constitutional right to a jury trial for such deprivation of property, and I do not support one in this instance."

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, nor am I lawyer. So pardon my interpetations.

Part of the Fifth Amendment reads:
"or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The start of the Sixth Amendment reads:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ..."

"Evicting someone from his home is not quite as extreme as your leg theory, but it's close, bearing no rational relationship to the conduct at issue. Confiscating the home stereo would be a closer analog. (And no, I don't think confiscating the car stereo is sufficient to deter loud car stereo violators.)"

Why shouldn't the state confiscate a person's house if he's using the house to facilitate loud parties?

"Confiscating the car for speeding is a far better analog. I do not support that, but it would not be any more or less constitutionally-sound than confiscating the car for noise."

Why not support confiscating the car for speeding and other moving violations, especially if public safety is at risk?

Why not confiscate cars of drivers who are talking on their cell phones, changing their car's radio station while the vehicle is in motion, or driving without their seat belts on? It'd certainly get their attention.

The law is extreme, and you fail to realize that. Understand that many states have provisions for convicted drunk drivers to drive to and from their place of work during the duration of their license suspension.

But you want to take away the cars of drivers whose radio (in the opinion of your local traffic cop) is too loud?

[carpundit]

That's a lot to respond to, but I'll try to get it all.

On the constitutional issue: I am familiar with both those amendments, thanks. Because you are not a lawyer, you probably didn't know that the right to a trial by jury applies only to cases in which there is the meaningful possibility of jail time. It does not apply to non-jailable offenses or civil offenses. (In Massachusetts, most motor vehicle offenses are civil offenses.)

On your house example: I don't think the house thing is a valid analogy, but I'll accept it for argument's sake. There is a meaningful, historical, common law difference between the treatment of a home and the treatment of a motor vehicle. The former is awarded a degree of protection from the state that rivals or exceeds that of a person's own body. The latter is not. Also, your suggesting permanent confiscation of the home for a noise violation is beyond the ordinance I support, which is a time-limited confiscation for a noise violation. I would support a time-limited confiscation of the right of a person to be in his home. It's called jail.

On speeding: I object to the blanket assertion that speeding is unsafe. I do not see speeding as the public menace that blaring stereos are. Almost everyone speeds. Many fewer people have an obnoxious subwoofer. That said, I see nothing constitutionally infirm about confiscating cars for excessive speed. I just don't support it.

On other unsafe operation: Again, nothing unconstitutional about taking those cars. I might or might not be in favor, depending on the particular violation at issue.

On confiscation being extreme: Yes, it is. Yes, I realize that. Yes, I still support it.

All we're doing is drawing lines. I'm not trying to convince you to see it my way, but you can't win the issue by citing contitutional rights that aren't infringed by the proposal.

[T.J. Brown]

You're right that I won't see it your way, but if you're right government has much more latitude than it should.

I do have a hard time believing that confiscating a vehicle (the most valuable thing a non-homeowner might own) would be just punishment for a petty offense. From what I understand (and again I'm but a simple layperson), courts are careful in classifying offenses so petty that one is not entitled to a jury trial. A $75 fine is one thing; a punishment as severe as car confiscation seems that it should come only after a jury trial.

It might be perfectly Constitutional, but perhaps it shouldn't be.

[K-Dawg]

personally i dont think they should have a law on something the gov. makes so much money on i mean its like your saying its ok to buy it but you cant use it

[Reasoner]

So, if you get popped by the police for having cocaine in your pocket, you get to hang on to it until you are tried and found guilty? I don't think so.

Some communities consider boom car equipment contraband because they can't be played legally, and the noise thugs who blast them won't listen to reason or respond to smaller fines. The bottom line is that police do what they can to protect law-abiding citizens from law-breakers. When you disregard the noise ordinance you become a lawbreaker, and it is the law-breakers that need to accommodate society; not the other way around.

In addition to fines and confiscation, I heartily endourse that the offender also be spanked really hard.

Here's a thought. Don't turn it up and you won't even have to worry about it.
(Visit www.lowertheboom.org and get educated.)