Possible to fight unnecessary noise violation?

[abe86]

Hey guys, would appreciate some help if anyone can relate to my case.
I was driving my mustang pulling up to a house party at a friend's place. After I got out and was walking to the house, a cop who was at the intersection infront of the house stopped me.
First he thought I may have been intoxicated, asked if would take the breathalyser. I said yes I'll take it no problem, he goes into his car, then comes out and hands me a unnecessary noise violation under sect. 75(4) of the HTA.

Now, I did not rev the engine at all coming down the road, but I did leave it in a gear (manual transmission) a bit longer than i should have coming down the street.

So 2 main questions :

1) any hope I can fight this and hope to win?

2) is he able to just give me an "unnecessary noise" ticket without any sort of instrument measuring the sound? and would it help me if i brought it to trial to state that since i was right infront of the house, the officer could have mistaken the noise from the house party for the noise from my car?

i really wouldn't mind the fee, but this damn ticket would go on my record as a minor conviction

[Starchild]

Without measuring the actual noise of your vehicle with a decibel meter, the charge should not stand in court.

[Rob MacLennan]

Stock, or aftermarket exhaust? Did he do anything to examine your exhaust system? If he didn't examine your exhaust, then he cannot certify that it wasn't in keeping with the requirements.

Did he nail you for your exhaust, or did you use your horn? This is the section that you have to show reasonable doubt for:

Noise, smoke, bells and horns
Muffler

75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

Same

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) a motor-assisted bicycle with an attached motor that is driven entirely by electricity; or
(b) a motor vehicle that is driven entirely by electricity. 2009, c. 5, s. 31.

Fumes from engine

(3) The engine and power mechanism of every motor vehicle shall be so equipped and adjusted as to prevent the escape of excessive fumes or smoke. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (3).

Unnecessary noise

(4) A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not sound any bell, horn or other signalling device so as to make an unreasonable noise, and a driver of any motor vehicle shall not permit any unreasonable amount of smoke to escape from the motor vehicle, nor shall the driver at any time cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise, but this subsection does not apply to a motor vehicle of a municipal fire department while proceeding to a fire or answering a fire alarm call. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (4).

Alarm bell to be sounded

(5) Every motor vehicle, motor assisted bicycle and bicycle shall be equipped with an alarm bell, gong or horn, which shall be kept in good working order and sounded whenever it is reasonably necessary to notify pedestrians or others of its approach. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (5).

Prohibition as to use of siren horn

(6) No vehicle other than an ambulance, fire or police department vehicle, public utility emergency vehicle or vehicle operated by the Ministry shall be equipped with a siren horn or a device producing a sound which so nearly resembles that produced by a siren horn as to deceive or confuse. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (6).

[abe86]

Thanks for the readings, I have familiarized myself with most of them already. The stop was for the exhaust, as I did not use the horn, but
I definately did not see him examine the exhaust.

From the bit of reading that I have also done I've realized these facts, but not sure whether they will matter as the offence seems to be totally up to the discretion of the officer, but if i bring these issues to court will the judge dismiss the charge?

-no stationary revving
-no decible reader
-i parked right in front of the house party, so he may have mistook some noise from that
-didn't examine exhaust system

I was just on hold at the ministry of transportation for half an hour before i gave up, but i also would like to know if "unnecessary noise" counts as a moving violation, and if so does it also include demerit points.

[Rob MacLennan]

Fine, no points.

*EDIT* If handled right by you, if he didn't examine the exhaust system, and if he doesn't perjure himself, then you should be able to get off. This section of the HTA is horribly dated. There are stock exhaust systems that would fail the old test for a straight-thru system (stuffing a police baton up the tail pipe). If he didn't examine the system, then he doesn't know if the infraction was valid. He doesn't even really know if it was stock, or not.

[turbodish]

Fine, no points.

*EDIT* If handled right by you, if he didn't examine the exhaust system, and if he doesn't perjure himself, then you should be able to get off. This section of the HTA is horribly dated. There are stock exhaust systems that would fail the old test for a straight-thru system (stuffing a police baton up the tail pipe). If he didn't examine the system, then he doesn't know if the infraction was valid. He doesn't even really know if it was stock, or not.

This is an 75.(4) unnecessary noise ticket, not a 75.(1) improper muffler ticket. The cop does not need to inspect the muffler for this one. All he needs to do is articulate that the OP made an unusual and unnecessary amount of noise for whatever reason while operating his vehicle.

[mat2312]

This is an 75.(4) unnecessary noise ticket, not a 75.(1) improper muffler ticket. The cop does not need to inspect the muffler for this one. All he needs to do is articulate that the OP made an unusual and unnecessary amount of noise for whatever reason while operating his vehicle.

What's the definition of unusual and unnecessary noise? Or is this another one of those laws that don't apply equally to everyone and the police use to bully society.

A law like this should have a measurable number attached to it, not an opinion.

[abe86]

that's exactly my argument, it is an entirely subjective conclusion as to what is considered "unnecessary noise",

and in view of the points I made above, I'm wondering if the judge will see that there is some doubt to the officer's testimony.

also it was unclear as to why I was initially being pulled over, as the officer did not specifically mention why. If it was because he thought I was intoxicated, why did he not give me the test. It seems he just gave me the noise violation as an afterthought, as he made no mention of that whatsoever when he initially stopped me (mind you i was already walking on the street at which point he initiated the whole "stop where you are" and gave me the ticket)

[Starchild]

Unless the officer is a Sergeant (only Sergeants carry decibel meters), I doubt this will go to trail.

[FiReSTaRT]

Abe, you have to understand the officer. These days, they are accountable for their time and the money spent on them. If he did not give you a ticket for something, he would have had to justify to his sergeant why he was lollygagging while he should have been running a speed trap.

[Rob MacLennan]

This is an 75.(4) unnecessary noise ticket, not a 75.(1) improper muffler ticket. The cop does not need to inspect the muffler for this one. All he needs to do is articulate that the OP made an unusual and unnecessary amount of noise for whatever reason while operating his vehicle.

Yes, I did miss that point. That would mean, if the OP's post is to be taken at face value, that the officer would have to perjure himself in order to obtain a conviction.

[abe86]

to starchild -> doubt it will go to trial? as in i should pursue the trial option and see if they drop/offer me a bylaw ticket if possible..?

just because they have to prove to whoever that they are doing something doesn't matter to me, its whether i can win this case or not

i'm definately leaning towards fighting it in court

[turbodish]

Yes, I did miss that point.

Read the section again, and make note of the use of "nor" in it.

Unnecessary noise

(4) A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not sound any bell, horn or other signalling device so as to make an unreasonable noise,

and a driver of any motor vehicle shall not permit any unreasonable amount of smoke to escape from the motor vehicle,

nor shall the driver at any time cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise,

but this subsection does not apply to a motor vehicle of a municipal fire department while proceeding to a fire or answering a fire alarm call. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (4).

The highlighted phrase is a catch-all phrase that allows the section to cover a lot of ground. It could be used to cite a driver for a stereo being too loud, for squealing tires off a start, revving an engine unnecessarily, or any number of other unspecified gratuitous acts that result in excessive noise being created when there is no real need for it.

[turbodish]

Without measuring the actual noise of your vehicle with a decibel meter, the charge should not stand in court.

No need for a db meter on this one. He's not charged with exceeding a noise specification threshold.

[Scob]

^^

So it is one of those laws that don't apply equally to everyone and the police use to bully certain segments of society.

[turbodish]

Yes, I did miss that point. That would mean, if the OP's post is to be taken at face value, that the officer would have to perjure himself in order to obtain a conviction.

That's a big "if". A car or bike with a loud exhaust running at high revs for a prolonged length of time down a residential street at night would be grounds for an unnecessary noise ticket.

Now, I did not rev the engine at all coming down the road, but I did leave it in a gear (manual transmission) a bit longer than i should have coming down the street.

The OP's own words can be viewed as being contradictory on whether his revs were too high or not for an unnecessary length of time. Did not rev the engine at all, but left it in a gear longer than he should have sounds like an acknowledgment that it was unnecessary.

[Rob MacLennan]

Read the section again, and make note of the use of "nor" in it.

Unnecessary noise

(4) A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not sound any bell, horn or other signalling device so as to make an unreasonable noise,

and a driver of any motor vehicle shall not permit any unreasonable amount of smoke to escape from the motor vehicle,

nor shall the driver at any time cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise,

but this subsection does not apply to a motor vehicle of a municipal fire department while proceeding to a fire or answering a fire alarm call. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (4).

The highlighted phrase is a catch-all phrase that allows the section to cover a lot of ground. It could be used to cite a driver for a stereo being too loud, for squealing tires off a start, revving an engine unnecessarily, or any number of other unspecified gratuitous acts that result in excessive noise being created when there is no real need for it.

Yes, I quoted that section also. The word "cause" seems to presume something other than normal operation of the vehicle, like revving it. Anything else, related to exhaust noise, should be handled by applying 75.1.

[Starchild]

to starchild -> doubt it will go to trial? as in i should pursue the trial option and see if they drop/offer me a bylaw ticket if possible..?

just because they have to prove to whoever that they are doing something doesn't matter to me, its whether i can win this case or not

i'm definately leaning towards fighting it in court

Whether you going to fight the ticket in court or not, you should submit it for trial.

[abe86]

To be honest, we were showing up to a house party beside the university, in a mainly student inhabited area. Not sure if i would be able to figure out if there were any noise disturbances called in for that location that night since I parked right near the house in question. With regards to the noise, I meant that I was not stationary revving like an idiot, nor was i coasting in neutral and revving.

As far as I know, If he thought I was making unnecessary noise by coming down the street, the only way possible being my muffler noise, that's all he has in the court room. Not like I was doing a 1/4 mile run down the street.

Bottom line, the question I have to you guys, is whether with all the points I have made, do I have a chance of getting it thrown out when you weigh my argument on one side and ONLY his word on the other.

[Rob MacLennan]

As I said, if you've been truthful in what you said here, and he perjures himself, you're done. An officer has the status of "friend of the court" and his word counts more in evidence than does yours.