Modified Mufflers, Motorcycles and Music: How Loud is Too Loud?

By Pauline Masson –

Acting Police Chief Major Don Locke’s request for an ordinance that would make it easier for his officers to write traffic tickets for loud mufflers emphasized citizen comfort. It also targeted loud motorcycles, music, air conditioners, household pets and fireworks.

The four-page proposed ordinance, Bill 5248 was presented for a first reading at the August 20 board of aldermen (BOA) meeting. The bill identified nuisance noise as any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others.

Officials said a complaint from a resident prompted Major Locke to ask for the ordinance to make it easier for his officers to write tickets for excessively loud vehicle mufflers. He specifically wanted to outlaw muffler cutouts that can raise the noise level of mufflers.

The title of the bill cites mufflers and muffler cutouts, but the proposed new law targets a staggering number of noises – like barking dogs and loud radios – that could land residents in trouble. If convicted of a peace disturbance, violators could face a thousand dollar fine, or ninety days in jail, or both.

Among noises that are identified as illegal in the new law include vehicle horns, screeching tires, sirens, whistles, radios music, animal or bird noises, rattling vehicle, blowers, air conditioners, any noise in the construction, repair or demolition of buildings, explosives and fireworks.

The proposed law, which was crafted by City Attorney Robert Jones, is a mashup of existing Pacific city ordinances and St. Louis County noise codes that the accused noisemaker would need to navigate to know whether or not they agree with the complaint.

The ordinance says unacceptable noise levels shall be those adopted in the St. Louis County Noise Code.

Former Pacific Police Officer Drew Whitman and Alderman Debbie Kelley raised a number of questions on the intent and enforcement of the tentative new law.

Mr. Whitman questioned how the police could write noise nuisance tickets when officers did not have a means to measure the level of the noise. He said when he was with the department the city did not have a decibel reader and no way to measure noise levels so they could not write tickets for loud vehicles.

Mr. Whitman also worried that motorcycle noise, which is often louder than car and truck mufflers, might be considered illegal under the new law but he considered motorcycle noise to be a safety measure.

“I ride a motorcycle. My motorcycle is loud, and it has saved my life,” he said. It is common in traffic that the driver of a car or truck may not see a motorcycle, but they hear it.

Mr. Whitman’s concerns were just the tip of the iceberg.

Alderman Debbie Kelley asked for clarifications on which citizens could be ticketed for activities that had up to now been an accepted part of city life. 

“I just want to  know some basis, what we are voting on, what are we agreeing to,” she said.

She asked how the new law would be applied to air conditioners.

“Mine is on the side of the house, and neighbors have told me that it’s loud. Am I going to have to relocate my air conditioner,” she said.

“Yeah, I think if you had an air conditioner that was very loud, it would be subject to some kind of regulation under this ordinance,” Attorney Jones said. “And public generators are going to be allowed for operation only when there is no electric service available.”

Ms. Kelley wanted to know whether the ordinance could impact outdoor community events. 

“Would schools and churches that have outdoor events that often include music that can be loud be penalized by this new ordinance?” Ms. Kelley asked.

Attorney Jones said the section of the proposed law that referred to institutions was aimed at noise that bother the institution rather than the other way around. He did not comment on what would happen if  someone complained that the event was too loud although the ordinance specifically prohibits playing musical instruments, loudspeakers, sound amplifiers, or other devices for the production or reproduction of sound that could disturb the peace.

“What about fireworks,” she added. “You could write ticket for kids up and down the street”

Alderman Rafael Madrigal responded to the complexity of the bill with a tongue in cheek remark.  

“Does this mean that Major Locke could pull the train over and give them a ticket for noise violation?”

Aldermen Lesh asked whether the proposed law had been seen by the city prosecuting attorney. Major Locke said the prosecuting attorney did see the proposed law.

Alderman James Cleeve went back to the title of the bill. He said his concerns with the proposed ordinance were primarily with muffler cutouts – those after-market gadgets that enable vehicle owners to modify their mufflers, usually to make more noise.

“I know people that have cutouts in their cars. They are electric cutouts. They keep them closed and when they go to the track they open them,” he said. “Is it the existence of a cutout, or the open cutouts.”

Attorney Jones said it was driving with the cutouts open that was considered a violation.

Alderman Karla Stewart asked whether the term vehicle included motorcycles. Mayor Filley responded that it is not limited to automobiles, which prompted another humorous comment from Alderman Madrigal.

“That’s a something for every Harley rider,” he said.

Ms. Kelley also had concerns about the references in the proposed ordinance to the St. Louis County Noise Code. Some seven clauses in the new law reference sections of the St. Louis County Noise Code that, if the bill is passed, would be part of Pacific Law.

“Are we going to use our municipal codes or are we going to use St. Louis Counties? So do I switch to a County code if there’s a violation,” she said. “We need clarification before the next reading.”

Mayor Filley asked whether the references to St. Louis County Code in the bill only applied to the section of the City that is in St. Louis County.

“No,” Attorney Jones said. “It would be applied throughout the City, it is just written by reference at the St. Louis County Noise Code, with some changes. Those numbers are actually carved out from the County code.”

“When we adopt a building code, for instance, we usually carve out five or ten sections that are particular for Pacific,” the attorney said. “That is what we’ve done here. At least that’s what is proposed to be done here.”

Mr. Jones also noted that St. Louis County is “preemptive,” so those codes would have to be applied in the St. Louis County section of the city. “But they could be applied throughout Franklin County,” he said.

Questions also arose over motorycles with and without mufflers, ATVs and Side-by-Sides.

“I just want to know what our intention is so we’re covered or not covered,” Mr. Cleeve said.

Major Locke said enforcing the new law was going to be very touchy.

“Because I have to tell you some of the newer cars are just loud and you don’t have to make them loud anymore,” he said. “My son purchased a car, and if he drove around  here you would say that it has an aftermarket exhaust but it doesn’t.”

An unidentified voice from the audience questioned how the law would be applied.

“So all right, you’re telling me that I can’t go out and buy a Reinhart, or anything like that,” he said’

Alderman Cleeve said that was what he was trying to determine.

Pacific nuisance codes seem to specify that in the case of fixed (not moving vehicle) noises, the violator would be notified of a complaint and given time to reduce or eliminate the noise. If the nuisance is not abated the mayor is authorized to review the complaint and if it is deemed appropriate call for a hearing on the complaint.

It should also be noted that in cities checked in research for this news item, noise nuisance is considered a public health issue and alleged violations are enforced by the health department not the police department.  

The penalty for violators as spelled out in the Pacific ordinance 100.170 says if no specific penalty is spelled out for the specific noise complaint, if convicted violators could face fines up to a thousand dollars, ninety days in jail, or both.

Mayor Heather Filley said so many questions had been raised that she thought the proposed bill should go back to the operations committee for further discussion.

“So I’m thinking before we continue to go down any more discussion with this, especially it being a first reading, it needs to go back to operations for further review. So. I would like to ask for motion to send this back to operations.

Alderman Scott Lesh, operations committee chair, which will study the issue, said the question before legislators was, “What do we want to do as a city, restrict noise or make cutouts illegal?”

“So for the residents,” Mr. Cleeve added, “if any of you have any input hit your alderman up so that we know what you want and what you’re looking for.”

The operations committee will meet at city hall at 3:00 p.m. September 12. The meeting is open to the public so citizens can weigh in on the issue.