A Florida law prohibiting the blasting of loud music from automobiles violates the first amendment, the Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District, ruled on September 16. Shannon Montgomery had been driving in Marion County with his tunes “plainly audible” from a distance of twenty-five feet, contrary to the statute. He was pulled over and police eventually discovered he was carrying cocaine and marijuana.
Montgomery moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing state law used to justify the traffic stop was overly broad and that “plainly audible” is an arbitrary standard. The appellate judges disagreed.
“A vague statute is one that fails to give a person of common intelligence fair and adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and which, because of its imprecision, may also invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” Chief Judge Richard B. Orfinger wrote for the three-judge panel. “We believe the statute here provides fair notice of the prohibited conduct: it is a violation to operate or amplify the sound inside a vehicle in the state of Florida, so that it is capable of being clearly heard outside of the vehicle at a distance greater than 25 feet. The distance standard provides an explicit guideline to those charged with enforcing the statute. If a law enforcement officer can hear sounds at or beyond the specified distance using his normal sense of hearing, the statute has been violated.”
In 1998, the appellate court first ruled that a law prohibiting plainly audible music from 100 feet was not vague. In 2005, the legislature responded by reducing the distance to 25 feet. The court was more sympathetic to Montgomery’s free-speech challenge.
“As previously discussed, music, including amplified music, is protected under the First Amendment,” Orfinger wrote. “Nonetheless, the government can constitutionally restrict such expression, even in a public place, if the limitations on the time, place, and manner of the protected speech are reasonable.”
As part of its 2005 changes, the legislature also added an exemption for amplified business and political speech, which doomed the law in the court’s view. The judges found that this provision inverted the proper constitutional principle that non-commercial speech be given greater protection than advertising.
“In this case, music or a religious message amplified so as to be heard twenty-five feet away from a vehicle would violate the statute, while a sound truck blaring ‘Eat at Joe’s’ or ‘Vote for Smith’ plainly audible at a great distance, would be authorized,” Orfinger wrote. “Clearly, the statute discriminates on the basis of content, not noise.”
As such, the court found the statute violated the First Amendment with a content-based restriction on free expression — a view shared by the Second District in a similar case from earlier this year. The judges here declined to apply the exclusionary rule because the police officer had no way of knowing the law he was enforcing was unconstitutional, especially since the courts had upheld an earlier version of the statute.
A copy of the ruling is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Montgomery v. Florida (Court of Appeals, State of Florida, 9/16/2011)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
A statue that allows police action because officer Dudley can hear a radio 25 feet away is an open invitation for abuse. Turn on the radio even a bit and stand 25 feet away with the windows open. If you can hear it then your car gets stopped, searched, etc.
No drugs, weapons or illegal immigrants found? No problem, here’s your ticket and fine and have a nice day.
At the very least a sound meter should be required with A-weighted curve adjustments. If this sounds (pun intended) like too much trouble, remember they have to use timing devices to give speeding tickets, not just the officer’s gut feeling that you were “flying down the road”. Without standards, or fairness a well meaning statue ends up becoming abusive.
I’m currently mounting several hundred watts and building a dual 12 inch enclosure for my trunk at the moment so I might be a little bias.
As much as I enjoy plugging in my Fender Jazz into it’s amp (complete with it’s own zip-code) I must agree with the American Philosopher Fred Rogers who once stated: “We all have a right to quiet.”
The 25-foot radius is indeed capricious. That said, if the world can hear your music from 100 feet away from your car, the world would like you to know that your taste in music sucks ass.
The correct decision. You want a law against excessive noise then fine. Make it generic and all encompassing. Loud exhaust, loud stereos, loud motorcycles, chainsaws, whatever, all treated the same. Otherwise the law is used to discriminate and harass otherwise law abiding individuals.
Completely agree. I’m actually in favor of voice ordinances. But this law was not right.
Not sure whether you understood the court decision correctly, mikedt. The decision did not say that there was any problem limiting the law to amplified speakers, as opposed to exhaust noise. The only problem they had with the law was that it carved out exceptions for commercial and political content. Also, the decision said there was no problem with the threshold sound level being defined as “plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet.”
I remember Gallagher had a whole bunch of jokes involving megaphones and one quote was “Freedom of speech includes volume.” I seems he was right.
No, 240SX_KAT, that is not correct. The court said that it was OK to restrict speech by volume, even if defined only as “plainly audible at 25 feet.”
As the FL resident with a “loud” stereo I’ve gotten this ticket before, which lead to another ticket for my window tint being too dark. Yet Harley’s rip by at much higher volume levels. As my dad told me: life’s not fair, and here we have a perfect example.
I hate other people’s loud noise. They can keep the windows shut (and the AC on and effective).
I have no idea how loud sound has to be to be heard 25, or 50, or 100 feet away. I wonder if a 25 foot law was passed so the next door neighbors won’t hear music through double-paned glass at night.
Free-speech advocates might want to test what political slogans can be yelled after the bar closes. That bar closing hours are a violation of their right to drink?
U should thank God should someone else told u to turn down the music!
In 10-15 yrs from now u’ll be wired to sound 24/7, is sound alright as long as u enjoy “Ear ringing” aka tinnitus, I have minor buzz in my L ear, I was in the drum shop yesterday the salesperson told me, his ringing is a bit prominent too.
Pumping 127 db inside your car is fun for now, is a good time but not long time. I have seen car sound off , they turn the stereo up, have a few dudes holding the glasses in cases it got so loud it can blew off!
I personally have nobody but myself to blame by listened to loud music, headphones for too long. Thank God that is only 1 ear.
Some say Acupuncture or Traditional Chinese medicine may help.
I hope u can hear a pin drop 20 yrs from now. Once hearing is gone, one need to learn lip reading or read writings.
Besides my ringing my hearing sensitivity is not what it should have been, I need people to speak up too, quite often is very annoying to either party.
I hate overly loud car stereos. They are usually driven in my area by young people that pay no taxes, don’t work, and don’t seem to be concerned that we have to get up to go to work in the morning, as they like to cruise through the neighborhood at 2AM rattling peoples windows. I feel that they should be fined heavily for this behavior. I’m all about having a good time, but when someone infringes on my right to quiet enjoyment in my home, it’s game on. The police in my town have started to give tickets for disturbing the peace in my neck of the woods, and I am thankful for the increased enforcement. If the little bastards want to contest it, I’m sure there are many other ways the police can make their life difficult. If I came home with a ticket for disturbing the peace when I was younger, my dad would have kicked my ass, and If my kid comes home with one, I will be kicking his.
You sure have those “loud music” people figured. Who else do you hate?
People who haven’t figured out that they can get their fix by using an ipod without disturbing others. Are you seriously trying to defend someones right to annoy? Maybe hate is too strong a word. How about take umbrage with?
Yeah, yeah, yeah … I know. If the music’s too loud, you’re too old. Well guess what. I’m too old now and I can’t hear as well as I used to. But when your decibels are making my car’s windows rattle, that’s not freedom of speech, that’s assault.
I used to routinely call the cops on the factory workers who would drive by the houses in my neighborhood at 2:00 a.m. with their stereos ‘bumping’. I believe that this behavior is indeed an important form of expression, it serves to alert everyone within two square miles that the lowest possible class of individual is approaching at rapid speed (also applies to Harley riders). The cops would show up, pull them over, and discover the ubiquitous drugs, alcohol, weapons, outstanding warrants. Eventually the problem was curtailed.
Point being that this type of expression, whether constitutional or not shows no regard or consideration for others. It is poor citizenship, and the people involved are usually poor citizens.