City of Cleveland v. Watts, 951 N.E.2d 493

Watts manages Velvet Dog, a restaurant/night club in a mixed-use Warehouse District with a rooftop music deck.
On Sep 5, 2010, Watts was cited under CCO 683.01(a) for Playing of Sound Devices Prohibited, alleging loud music.
Police earlier advised Watts the music was too loud; DJ volume was lowered to 50% after the commander’s input.
The commander could hear Velvet Dog’s music from the street; citation issued at 1:30 a.m.
Watts moved to dismiss on Oct 5, 2010, arguing vagueness, First Amendment protection, and uneven enforcement.
Court addresses only the first prong of CCO 683.01(a) (music audible to neighbors outside the room) as challenged by Watts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CCO 683.01(a) is void-for-vagueness.	Watts argues the first prong is vague.	City contends a reasonable-person standard saves the statute.	Vagueness challenge rejected.
Whether loud club music in an entertainment district is protected by the First Amendment.	Music as speech is protected; ordinance restricts protected expression.	Regulation targets conduct (noise), not content.	Ordinance does not infringe free speech.
Whether enforcement irregularities render the complaint invalid.	City’s prior non-enforcement shows unfair application.	Discretion in enforcement allowed; prior inaction doesn’t bar current enforcement.	Enforcement not unfair; motion denied.

Gaughan v. Cleveland, 212 F. App’x 405 (6th Cir. 2007) (upholding reasonable-person standard in noise ordinance context)
State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (1983) (upholding reasonable-person standard to save ordinance from vagueness)
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (comment on standard for vagueness and enforcement)
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (principles cited re: due process and standards)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (content-neutral time/place, speech restrictions comply with First Amendment)