My Sheriff has just called me to find out if the County can adopt an order against "Loud music". We looked at 42.01 of the Penal Code which requires the decibel level to be above 85. The Sheriff wants me to check and see if the Commissioners Court can pass an order that does not use the decibel measurement for there to be a violation. He wants to just use the standard of "loud music"(I knows it when I hears it). I suggested to him that such an ordinance was too vague to pass constitutional muster, but I would go to some experts (that's you all) to see if anyone had such an ordinance/order in his/her county. What do you ladies and gentlemen say???

While it's true that the PC statute involves decibel levels, check out the following:

Kovacs v. Cooper, 69 SCT 448 (1949) upholding conviction under a city ordinance with no decibel level -- here's a quote -- "The contention that the section is so vague, obscure and indefinite as to be unenforceable merits only a passing reference. This objection centers around the use of the words 'loud and raucous.' While these are abstract words, they have through daily use acquired a content that conveys to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept of what is forbidden . . . It is an exercise of the authority granted to the city by New Jersey 'to prevent disturbing noises,' N.J.Stat.Ann., tit. 40:48--1(8), nuisances well within the municipality's power to control. The police power of a state extends beyond health, morals and safety, and comprehends the duty, within constitutional limitations, to protect the well-being and tranquility of a community. A state or city may prohibit acts or things reasonably thought to bring evil or harm to its people." The conviction was upheld.

Also look at Grayned v. City of Rockford, 92 SCT 2294 (1972) upholding anti-noise ordinance that D claimed was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague -- ordinance read, "'(N)o person, while on public or private grounds adjacent to any building in which a school or any class thereof is in session, shall willfully make or assist in the making of any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such school session or class thereof. ."

Turning from the Supremes to an unpublished COA opinion, look at Schrader v. State, 2000 WL 1227866 which upheld the constitutionality of an Austin ordinance -- "(A) It is unlawful for any person operating or controlling a motor vehicle in either a public or private place within the city to operate any sound amplifier which is part of, or connected to, any radio, stereo receiver, compact disc player, cassette tape player, or other similar device in the motor vehicle, in such a manner that, when operated, it is audible at a distance of 30 feet or, when operated, causes a person to be aware of the vibration accompanying the sound at a distance of 30 feet from the source."

This should provide you with a starting point on the issue. It is certainly reasonable to regulate loud noises -- using the guidelines set out by these cases. Wasn't it a goal of the founding fathers to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Most people aren't too happy to be, for example, disturbed by loud noises at night!! Protecting people from loud noises is a legitimate state interest!

The statute states that a noise over 85 decibels is presumed to be disorderly conduct. It does not follow that an noise less than 85 decibels is presumed NOT to be disorderly conduct.

For instance:

I live in a neighborhood where a garage band practices. The source decibel level is 87 or so. With the garage door open, the decibel reading when measured from my back yard is 82 decibels.

Which reading do you use?

Well, assume for a moment that I am the next door neighbor. 82 decibels might not be an unreasonable noise at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on a Saturday, but you better believe that it's pretty darn unreasonable at 4 o'clock in the morning.

All of the above cited cases seem to suggest that reasonableness standard. I like the 30 foot rule for cars, myself.