State v. Carrick
965 N.E.2d 264
Ohio2012Background
- Carrick hosted a Halloween party Oct. 31, 2009 outside Wooster; music was very loud and bass audible miles away.
- Neighbors Golgosky and Klenz complained repeatedly until early Nov. 1; noise continued at high level despite warnings.
- An off-duty Wooster officer investigated, issued warnings, and observed ongoing noise before the first citation.
- Deputies gave Carrick a disorderly-conduct citation after a third visit when the bass remained loud, leading to arrest.
- Carrick was convicted under R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) for making unreasonable noise; Fourth District conflict prompted certification to the Ohio Supreme Court for vagueness review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) void for vagueness on its face | Carrick argues statute lacks standard | State contends statute provides notice via objective standard | Not void for vagueness on its face |
| Is the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to Carrick | Carrick asserts applied ambiguity in context | State insists sufficient notice in this case | Not vague as applied to Carrick |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus v. Kim, 118 Ohio St.3d 93 (2008-Ohio-1817) (noise ordinance not unconstitutionally vague; uses objective standards and factors to assess disturbance)
- State v. Reeder, 18 Ohio St.3d 25 (1985) (due-process vagueness requires notice; not unconstitutionally vague where standard is comprehensible)
- Anderson, 57 Ohio St.3d 168 (1991) (facial vagueness standard for criminal statutes)
- United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954) (requiring reasonable, comprehensible conduct standards)