Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

Page 2 -- September !$, 2004 Z.B. Noise -- City ordinance limits noise to 25 feet Preacher claims limitation violates free speech by being overbroad Citation: Deegan v. City. of Ithaca, U.S. District Court for the .,:Vorthern Di.~trict of zVew York, No..~.'O0-CV-I.~3] N-KW YORK (08/10/04) -- Deegan believed it was his religious duty te preach publicly about Christianity. ;'Preaching" involved spe0king in public in a raised voice that could be heard over 2~ feet away. Deegan went ~o ithaca Commons ~o preach. Ithaca Commons was a pedes- !finn mae with streets approximately 66 ~' ~ wide. lie spoke "at the top of his lungs" persistently and continuously. ,~te; citizen complaints, police officers ordered Deegan to leave the Com- mons because his preaching violated a city ordinance prohibiting speech that could be heard over 25 feet away. After being told [o leave, Deegan did not cry to preach in the Commons again by applying for a permit to use amplified sound, speaking i.n a lower roue of voice, or passing out brochures. Deegan sued, arguing the noise restriction's breadth placed a significant burden on his fight to free speech and was often violated by closing doors and "spit/ted conversation." DECISION: Dismissed. The noise restriction did not place a significant burden on protected speech. There was no showing Deegan's spe,.cn could not be heard and understood by a reasonable number of people. Deegan presented no evidence that in order for people to hear and understand bas religious message, his speech must be heard at a distance of 2~ feet or more. As the streets in Ithaca Commons were 66 feet wide, it would seem the speech would be heard by a significant amount of people in the area. Certainly, Deegan was not entitled to have his speech heard by everyone. The 25-foo~ restriction was not overbroad. The fact that occasional, inter- mittent, or impulsive sounds such as [oud conversation or closing doors some- times exceeded the restriction was not evidence the restriction was overly burdensome. Nor ,,vas ir evidence continuous and persistent preaching ar the same volume as such occasional sounds would not be excessive noise. Ultimately, Deegan failed to show the ordinance burdened substantially more s~eech than was necessary to further the city's legitimate interest in prohibiting excessive noise. ~"e,~ a/so: Tudor ,,.. Poiice De~cm.'menr~ of;he.. Cip~ O.t'hfe,,v ?brk, i67 r.~c~ ' 4 757 ~, zu'uu;. see a/so.: k'7iic.'..ge ,2/VYi/iowbrook v. O/.ech. 32,~ U.S. 362 (2000). Quiet Enjoyment -- Zoning change would allow dorm to be built ?eighbOrin~ te:~ant ,~zssociarion claims members are harmed by decision 134