Big stereo could cost you your car

STL Today ^ | 01/27/2006 | Jake Wagman

[P8riot]

You may be on to something. Confiscate their rap CD's, etc. Force them to play Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. for a year.

How about a little of their own medicine?

Get an FM transmitter (they're not that expensive) and tune it to broadcast classical or gospel music on the frequency of the local (C)rap station, granted it won't work if they are playing CDs, but it'll catch some of them.

[webstersII]

"I don't want the government interfering with my rights, but your rights aren't nearly as important."

Well stated.

[webstersII]

"Granted, the severity of the penalty is certainly debatable; this concept of confiscating vehicles is asinine."

That was my real point, although I probably did not state it as well as I should have. Believe me, I hate loud music as much as anyone, but this law is quite punitive in the way it's currently written.

In addition, there are noise ordinances and laws against disturbing the peace that could already be used against this type of thing, so why would they need to enact new laws?

[brwnsuga]

Only black kids play loud music? I have ridden by cars (with their stereos vibrating my mirror) full of white kids.

[thoughtomator]

If the car is the instrument of the crime, then why cannot it be seized as evidence? You have yet to articulate a standard... it seems that you agree with seizure only for certain types of crime, but you have not come out and said so. Since the car itself is the instrument of the crime this is perfectly reasonable. You say that there is a differing level of government interest but give no details on how you quantify it. I'd say there's about the same level of interest as in stopping grafitti spray-painting... would you at least concede that seizing the spray cans in acceptable?

The effect of these carstereos in many cases is that of an assault, something you are not acknowledging at all. You seem to provide no possibility of remedy to the homeowners. What would you do if you owned a home and your sleep was disturbed regularly with these vehicles?

If you cannot provide an alternate remedy then you are saying to the homeowner "live with it". There is no justice whatsoever in that position.

[Muleteam1]

One of my great great great grandfathers was a Scottish fiddler in NC. That's what got me into listening to the Scottish tunes. Haven't really gotten into the pipes but for sure there are some astounding pipe tunes. Amazing Grace is one that immediately comes to mind.

[Arkinsaw]

If the car is the instrument of the crime, then why cannot it be seized as evidence?

The car is not the instrument of any crime. Are you saying that a home is "an instrument of a crime" if it contains an illegal firearm for instance? Would a car be an instrument of a crime if it brought an abortion protestor to a clinic where he stepped one foot too close to the building? So its okay for the government to seize all these "instruments of crime"? How about seizing the garage that housed the car that carried the boombox that jack built? Maybe the factory that built the car that carried the boombox? We can sue gun manufacturers, why not seize car factories? Real conservative.

You have yet to articulate a standard... it seems that you agree with seizure only for certain types of crime, but you have not come out and said so.

The minimum necessary government intrusion and power to solve the problem. That is the standard. Government seizure of a person's automobile is not the minimum necessary government power to solve the problem of noisy stereos. Got it? Thats the standard.

Since the car itself is the instrument of the crime this is perfectly reasonable.

No, its not. If you go faster than the speed limit, your auto is the instrument of a crime. According to you this makes it okay for the government to seize it and that government has the power to do so. That is an utterly and completely ridiculous position to take and not conservative in the least.

You say that there is a differing level of government interest but give no details on how you quantify it.

Anyone with a brain can see the differing levels of government interest in a) preventing murder with a deadly weapon, b) stopping loud noises. If you have trouble seeing the varying levels of government interest there. I cannot help you. I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

I'd say there's about the same level of interest as in stopping grafitti spray-painting... would you at least concede that seizing the spray cans in acceptable?

At least you have avoided a fallacious argument. The point is to hand over the minimum power necessary for government to effectively perform the specific duties delegated to it. The least impact on individual liberty and still enable the smooth functioning of society. Keeping this goal in mind, what is the impact on individual liberty of providing the power to seize the spray can? What is the impact on individual liberty providing the power to seize an automobile? Different impact on private property? Considerably. Should government be blind to the difference? Should seizure of your car for parking in two spots or speeding equate to seizure of your spray can? You seem to say yes. As if we should be blind to the huge difference in power between the two actions.

The effect of these carstereos in many cases is that of an assault, something you are not acknowledging at all.

No, I don't. Assault is a very specific word that has meaning. Words mean things. You are talking an assault on the senses, which is far difference than a physical assault. If I paint my house pink it would be an assault on the senses. But it would not call for seizure of my house for assaulting you.

You seem to provide no possibility of remedy to the homeowners. What would you do if you owned a home and your sleep was disturbed regularly with these vehicles?

The remedies that government has always used for these sort of ordinances. A ticket, a trial, a fine. Second offense, a ticket, a trial, a bigger fine. Third offense, a ticket, a trial, some time in the orange suit. You continue to act as if there is no choice other than "nuttin" or "take the car".

If you cannot provide an alternate remedy then you are saying to the homeowner "live with it". There is no justice whatsoever in that position.

There have always been remedies for disturbing the peace. Its not a new offense. We have had remedies for disturbing the peace for hundreds of years. This is a new and vastly expansive extension of governmental power. Its a new remedy, not the only one, and not the historic one.

You propose to vastly expand the seizure powers of the government over private property for what is essentially a nuisance disturbance of the peace offense. That is NOT conservative thought.

You have no concept of what effect the precedent you are setting will have on you and your private property rights, or don't care about them. You might commit a minor nuisance offense that bug the majority also...accidentally parking in two spaces comes to mind (hate that)....or driving slow in the fast lane and impeding traffic.....if seizure is expanded to those offenses....you'll change your tune....won't ya?

[King Moonracer]

Only black kids play loud music?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! MS just passed a new seatbelt law, and the poverty pimps came out and said it was racist because the seatbelt law would allow bad cops to further harass blacks. I jumped on board that this load music law was racist because ..... Sheesh.

[Vicki]

I wish someone would invent a little hand held device that you could push a button and it would temporarily shut off the offending stereo. Especially at long stop lights.

I would gladly pay $200 for such a device.

[ChildOfThe60s]

there are noise ordinances and laws against disturbing the peace that could already be used against this type of thing, so why would they need to enact new laws?

Yep. If they actually enforced the current statutes they could get a grip on it. But they really don't care about enforcing them. This is another excuse to take property. Another cash cow. It has absolutely nothing to do with solving a community problem. When an elected official tells you he cares about you it is time to be afraid.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

And seize trucks for jake braking?

[Xenalyte]

What about the whistle tips? They go woo WOOOOO!

[ßuddaßudd]

Only a fool would advertise his stereo in my neighborhood. Never crank your tunes where you park your car at night...

[CFC__VRWC]

That's hysterical. The rear wiper banging and flapping on that beater is priceless!

[supercat]

Government is very limited in what private property it can seize. Is there a gun it thinks was used in a crime? Yeah. The house the gun was in? No.

I see no reason the government should have the right to permanently seize items used in crimes (i.e. hold them beyond their need as evidence) except in cases where the item itself was criminally acquired. I know the government routinely does such things and gets away with them, but I see no legitimate basis for such behavior.

Otherwise, the possible punishments for crimes could vary way out of proportion to the acts committed, based upon whether the accused has anything the government wants. Arrest someone for loitering while they're look at their $5,000 Rolex too many times, get a free $5,000 watch (since they were "using" in their crime), etc.

[supercat]

Impound them because they will ignore the ticket. This is not seizing the car, it's just towing it. One tow and they'll get the message.

So the goal is to punish people before finding them guilty, because getting a judge to find them guilty is too difficult?

How hard would be be to construct a device with a video camera/recorder, rangefinder, audio recorder, and a couple of sound-level meters attached to microphones with different degrees of directionality?

If the problem is that judges don't trust cops' judgements of distances and loudness, perhaps giving the cops the means to measure such things would solve the problem. Using narrow-field and very-narrow-field microphones would allow the cop to show that the noise was in fact coming from the suspect vehicle (if the very-narrow-field microphone picks up about as much total noise as the wide-field one, that means it's pointed at the noise source; if the wide-field one picks up more noise, that means the noise source is somewhere in that general direction but not quite where the narrow one is pointed).

[humblegunner]

What about the whistle tips? They go woo WOOOOO!

Thas only for decoration.. thas it and thas all.

[thoughtomator]

Where you are going wrong on this is the false separation of the stereo and the car. Those stereos are not being transported by the car; they have been integrated into it - they are one, car and stereo. The car is also the means of moving the stereo to the location of the crime. Connecting the car to the crime is immediate and integral to the crime. You cannot easily remove a bolted-in speaker system from a car, thus there is no argument that a reasonable person should remove the former from the latter. This is not a stretch of reason by any means, and certainly not the stretch made in the analogies put forth in your counter argument. If the source of the disturbance can be removed from the car without the use of tools then I would agree the car should not be seized.

Furthermore, your private property argument is further shattered once you consider that the car must be on public property (the street) at the time of the offense.

Addressing your "slippery slope" argument, I find it to be a fine argument, and make it quite often myself. Only in this case it's absurd, considering we are well at the bottom of the slope. Your breath is better spent for the decent citizen who lost his right to his home under Kelo than for those who manufacture suffering for everyone within earshot. So before we even discuss whether a local government can legally do this, that point is moot. A principle upheld only when decent citizens who have committed no crime are disadvantaged is a twisted evil achieving exactly the opposite of the intended result.

You should take all that principled passion and put it towards a more noble use than defending the "right" to damage others' ears and disturb others' sleep.

[Arkinsaw]

You would make a fine liberal judge...the private property is on a public street therefore it is not private. I am tired of your fallacies and ignoring my points. Go to China. I am done with you.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

Search Google for "HERF Gun".