ANTI-NOISE ORDINANCE; APPLICATION TO POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Home Browse Search

However, past case-law has generally rejected attacks on anti-noise ordinances on such due process grounds. The courts have held that such words, although abstract, have through daily use acquired a content that conveys to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept of what is forbidden. The mere fact that the meaning of a term is difficult to ascertain or suscep- tible of different interpretations is not sufficient to void an ordinance. The courts will view the statt~te from the standpoint of a reasonable man and will allow the use of ordinary terms to express ideas which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding. Kovacs v. Cooper,336 U.S. 77, 69 S. Ct. 448 (1949); Ha er_t v. Associated Farmers, 279, P. 2d 734 (1955); Smith v. Petersen, 280 P. 2d 522 19 5). Some applications of the anti-noise ordinance may bring forth First Amendment attacks - e. g, the regulation of sound trucks and voice amplifiers. These have been discussed in a pre- vious opinion of this office (No. 72-28) acid are not relevant to the fact situation here, which does not involve activities pro- tected by the First Amendment. (reference: Wollam v. City of Palm Springs, 29 Cal. Rptr. 1 (1963) ). The anti-noise ordinance, at least insofar as the speci- fic prohibitions are concerned, appear generally safe from con- stitutional attack. They do present obvious enforcement problems, but these are primarily problems of proof at trial. The trier of fact is sometimes called upon to determine whether the noise is excessive or disturbing The City must be able to present evidence that the noise was in violation of such a standard when it applies. The testimony of complaining witnesses is one source of evidence, but the testimony of the police officer on the scene may often be the deciding factor. The decision of the trier of fact may depend upon whether it is felt that the police officer acted reasonably in the circumstances, as, for example, in attempt- ing to obtain a voluntary abatement of the noise prior to making an arrest when such action is practicable. The ordinance obviously imposes a rather heavy burden on the police officer's discretion. III APPLICATION TO THE POSTAL SERVICE In general, the activities and instrumentalities of the federal government are immune from taxation or regulation by state and local governments. This follows from the supremacy o.f federal law over state and local law, in all areas where Congress may legitimately legislate pursuant to its constitutional powers. McCullou v. Mar land, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819); .Mayo v. U.S., 63 S. Ct 1137 1943 . The rule of federal immunity, however, has its limita- tions and qualifications. An employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state and local laws while acting in the course of his employment Johnson v. TZaryland, 41 S. Ct. 16 (1920). The activity may be immune, however, if to apply the state or local law would be to impose too great a burden of the federal activity, or if the state or local law is contrary -84-