TriStateTuners.com :: Home of Tristate Auto Enthusiast - View Single Post - Modified Exhaust Ticket

Vez · 02-25-2009, 03:28 PM

The Arguments:
I asked and received permission to pass this along to everyone. Here are the prepared arguments!!

Arguments outline

1. Exhaust noise is specifically governed by Title 75 (the vehicle code)
 The general assembly of Pennsylvania explicitly provided that noise emissions are to be governed by Title 75. The legislature set forth precise guidelines for permissible levels of noise emitted from vehicles, and set forth detailed guidelines for evaluating whether a vehicle is in conformity with such levels.

 The opinion of the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Bailey explains the changes that the legislature took in 1977 to ensure that the enforcement of levels was a purely objective endeavor. Prior to 1977 a driver could be cited for excessive noise emissions if “two peace officers” concluded that the noise level was too high. Because this was simply too subjective to establish any meaningful uniformity in enforcement, the legislature moved to the purely objective standards of the present day vehicle code. The standards are listed in Bailey as well as the procedures for enforcing them

 CONCLUSION: noise emitted from vehicles is explicitly governed by Title 75 (Vehicle code), NOT Title 18 (Crimes Code). Therefore the legislature preempted localities from regulating vehicle noise levels by other means. Such conduct clearly falls within the purview of the vehicle code, and it is improper for the police to circumvent the mandates of the vehicle code and its objective methods of enforcement by resort the crimes code.
o This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that I have been unable to find a single case from the appellate courts of Pennsylvania that recognize a disorderly conduct/unreasonable noise citation for vehicle noise emissions. Yet there is an abundance of cases upholding citations under the Vehicle Code for excessive noise emissions.

2. Even if the police were permitted to issue citations for unreasonable noise under the disorderly conduct statute, the noise emitted from my car does not amount to “unreasonable noise” as defined by the courts of Pennsylvania.

 The courts of Pennsylvania have held that unreasonable noise is noise that is “not fitting or in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.” (Commonwealth v. Hock, Commonwealth v. Maerz, Commonwealth v. Gilbert).
o Question: how can a vehicle that is in compliance with the noise levels set forth in the vehicle code produce noise that is “not fitting or in respect to the conventional standards of organized society?”

o Answer: it can’t. By definition the “conventional standard” governing vehicle noise levels is the levels set forth in Title 75. Because the legislature has established the “standards” of acceptable noise emissions from vehicles, any car that is in compliance with such standards at a minimum fits within the conventional standards of organized society, and as a matter of law CANNOT be guilty of disorderly conduct.

 CONCLUSION: assuming that the police are permitted to regulate vehicle noise emissions by means of the disorderly conduct statute, the standard of “unreasonable noise” articulated by the Supreme Court has not been satisfied in this case. If my vehicle is in compliance with the noise emission levels established in the Vehicle Code than it is certainly in conformity with the ‘conventional standards of organized society.’ Thus the noise emissions from my car do not meet the test of “unreasonable noise.”

02-25-2009, 03:28 PM	#15
Vez Tri-State Training Wheels Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Near Philly, PA Member #8445 My Ride: 2007 UGM Subaru Impreza WRX STI Ltd. #081/800 iTrader: (0)	Part 1/2 The Arguments: I asked and received permission to pass this along to everyone. Here are the prepared arguments!! Arguments outline 1. Exhaust noise is specifically governed by Title 75 (the vehicle code)  The general assembly of Pennsylvania explicitly provided that noise emissions are to be governed by Title 75. The legislature set forth precise guidelines for permissible levels of noise emitted from vehicles, and set forth detailed guidelines for evaluating whether a vehicle is in conformity with such levels.  The opinion of the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Bailey explains the changes that the legislature took in 1977 to ensure that the enforcement of levels was a purely objective endeavor. Prior to 1977 a driver could be cited for excessive noise emissions if “two peace officers” concluded that the noise level was too high. Because this was simply too subjective to establish any meaningful uniformity in enforcement, the legislature moved to the purely objective standards of the present day vehicle code. The standards are listed in Bailey as well as the procedures for enforcing them  CONCLUSION: noise emitted from vehicles is explicitly governed by Title 75 (Vehicle code), NOT Title 18 (Crimes Code). Therefore the legislature preempted localities from regulating vehicle noise levels by other means. Such conduct clearly falls within the purview of the vehicle code, and it is improper for the police to circumvent the mandates of the vehicle code and its objective methods of enforcement by resort the crimes code. o This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that I have been unable to find a single case from the appellate courts of Pennsylvania that recognize a disorderly conduct/unreasonable noise citation for vehicle noise emissions. Yet there is an abundance of cases upholding citations under the Vehicle Code for excessive noise emissions. 2. Even if the police were permitted to issue citations for unreasonable noise under the disorderly conduct statute, the noise emitted from my car does not amount to “unreasonable noise” as defined by the courts of Pennsylvania.  The courts of Pennsylvania have held that unreasonable noise is noise that is “not fitting or in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.” (Commonwealth v. Hock, Commonwealth v. Maerz, Commonwealth v. Gilbert). o Question: how can a vehicle that is in compliance with the noise levels set forth in the vehicle code produce noise that is “not fitting or in respect to the conventional standards of organized society?” o Answer: it can’t. By definition the “conventional standard” governing vehicle noise levels is the levels set forth in Title 75. Because the legislature has established the “standards” of acceptable noise emissions from vehicles, any car that is in compliance with such standards at a minimum fits within the conventional standards of organized society, and as a matter of law CANNOT be guilty of disorderly conduct.  CONCLUSION: assuming that the police are permitted to regulate vehicle noise emissions by means of the disorderly conduct statute, the standard of “unreasonable noise” articulated by the Supreme Court has not been satisfied in this case. If my vehicle is in compliance with the noise emission levels established in the Vehicle Code than it is certainly in conformity with the ‘conventional standards of organized society.’ Thus the noise emissions from my car do not meet the test of “unreasonable noise.”