STATE EX REL. CITY OF PROVIDENCE v. Auger
44 A.3d 1218
R.I.2012Background
- Auger was convicted in Superior Court de novo for violating Providence Code §16-93 (Radios, television sets, and similar devices) due to loud vehicle music in a residential area on May 25, 2008 around Chalkstone Ave; fine $200.
- Ordinance §16-93 prohibits operating sound devices in residential zones so as to disturb peace, with prima facie evidence at 200 ft or audible within 200 ft.
- Patrolman Barros testified he heard loud music at 227 ft, identified Auger, and later photographed and measured the distance.
- Defendant argued §16-93 is preempted by state noise statutes and that it is vague and overbroad; trial court denied motion to dismiss and found prima facie violation.
- At issue on appeal to Rhode Island Supreme Court were preemption, vagueness, and overbreadth challenges; Court affirmed Superior Court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Providence §16-93 is preempted by state law | Auger contends state statutes occupy the field | Auger argues field preemption by 11-45.1-2 and 31-45-5 | No preemption; ordinance complements state law. |
| Whether §16-93 is void-for-vagueness | Auger asserts lack of notice and arbitrary enforcement | Providence argues clear standard and prima facie evidence | Not vague; provides definite standard and objective criteria. |
| Whether §16-93 is overbroad | Auger claims it suppresses protected speech | Ordinance narrowly tailored to noise in residential areas | Not overbroad; adequately tailored and leaves channels for speech. |
| Whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to review the Municipal Court conviction | Auger lacked right to de novo jury review | Zoning-like/analogous offense warrants de novo review | Superior Court had jurisdiction; offense criminal in nature and jury trial right applies. |
| Whether §16-93 violates home-rule authority | City may regulate local noise | State statutes preempt local regulation | No violation of home-rule; local regulation consistent with state policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (government's substantial interest in protecting citizens from unwelcome noise)
- Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1949) ( First Amendment protection of music on public streets)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (void-for-vagueness requires definite notice and reasonable enforcement)
- State v. Vinagro, 433 A.2d 945 (R.I. 1981) (jury trial right for criminally oriented offenses)
- Aptt v. City of Warwick Building Department, 463 A.2d 1377 (R.I. 1983) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal nature of zoning violations)
- Bradley (State ex rel. Town of Westerly) v. Town of Westerly, 877 A.2d 601 (R.I. 2005) (home-rule authority and municipal regulation scope)