Senate awaits 'orange sticker' verdict
Elexa Broder
Issue date: 11/18/09 Section: News
11/18/09 - The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union represented the University of Rhode Island's Student Senate last night in a hearing discussing the constitutionality of the "orange sticker policy."
Though the hearing held at the Roger Williams School of Law lasted an hour and a half, student senators will have to wait up to 60 days for a case verdict.
In 2005, the Narragansett Town Council enacted the "Unruly Gatherings" ordinance that declared any gathering a public nuisance in which five or more people that disturb the peace and quiet enjoyment of a neighborhood through unlawful conduct. The town of Narragansett's lawyer Marc DeSisto said unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to, excessive noise or traffic, illegal parking, public drunkenness or urination, public fights and littering.
A 10-inch-by-14-inch orange sticker placed on the front door of offenders represents the first warning. The next instance of unlawful conduct results in a $300 fine.
If given during the academic year, the sticker stays on the house until May 31 and Sept. 1 for stickers given in the summer. Any defacing of the sticker results in a $100 fine.
The Rhode Island ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Town of Narragansett in May of 2008. According to a news release from the Rhode Island ACLU, the highly-publicized ordinance allows police to charge tenants and landlords of houses that have allegedly been the site of unruly gatherings.
At last night's hearing in Bristol, R.I. URI student senators, Roger Williams law students and reporters crowded the courtroom.
Senate's volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish told the audience, "The language of the ordinance couldn't be more vague."
According to the news release, "the lawsuit notes that the ordinance 'gives sole discretion to the police department' to post stickers on the house where 'unruly gatherings' have allegedly occurred, 'without any opportunity for a hearing or appeal by owner or renter. The suit further calls the ordinance unconstitutionally vague, as it 'fails to provide a clear definition of prohibited behavior, merely listing examples,' and thus 'invites arbitrary and capricious enforcement' by police."
Though the hearing held at the Roger Williams School of Law lasted an hour and a half, student senators will have to wait up to 60 days for a case verdict.
In 2005, the Narragansett Town Council enacted the "Unruly Gatherings" ordinance that declared any gathering a public nuisance in which five or more people that disturb the peace and quiet enjoyment of a neighborhood through unlawful conduct. The town of Narragansett's lawyer Marc DeSisto said unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to, excessive noise or traffic, illegal parking, public drunkenness or urination, public fights and littering.
A 10-inch-by-14-inch orange sticker placed on the front door of offenders represents the first warning. The next instance of unlawful conduct results in a $300 fine.
If given during the academic year, the sticker stays on the house until May 31 and Sept. 1 for stickers given in the summer. Any defacing of the sticker results in a $100 fine.
The Rhode Island ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Town of Narragansett in May of 2008. According to a news release from the Rhode Island ACLU, the highly-publicized ordinance allows police to charge tenants and landlords of houses that have allegedly been the site of unruly gatherings.
At last night's hearing in Bristol, R.I. URI student senators, Roger Williams law students and reporters crowded the courtroom.
Senate's volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish told the audience, "The language of the ordinance couldn't be more vague."
According to the news release, "the lawsuit notes that the ordinance 'gives sole discretion to the police department' to post stickers on the house where 'unruly gatherings' have allegedly occurred, 'without any opportunity for a hearing or appeal by owner or renter. The suit further calls the ordinance unconstitutionally vague, as it 'fails to provide a clear definition of prohibited behavior, merely listing examples,' and thus 'invites arbitrary and capricious enforcement' by police."
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
LeeL
posted 11/27/09 @ 12:11 PM EST
Not allowing parties for sudents who are of legal age is discriminatory. Enforcing noise ordinances and public urination etc. ids another matter altogether. (Continued…)
LeeL
LeeL
posted 11/27/09 @ 12:16 PM EST
Not allowing parties for sudents who are of legal age is discriminatory. Enforcing noise ordinances and public urination etc. ids another matter altogether. (Continued…)
Post a Comment