The Dark Possibilities of Salisbury’s New Noise Ordinance
August 22, 2007 by Cato
Filed under Courts, Crime, Maryland, Neighborhoods, Salisbury Politics
We all should have known that the new noise ordinance proposed by Mayor Barrie Tilghman’s crack police chief Allan Webster would have a dark side. Initially, we just assumed that Barrie was pandering to folks in certain neighborhoods since she’s up for re-election in 2009. Then, courtesy of Councilwoman Debbie Campbell, we were able to surmise that the Mayor was using one of her infamous “bait and switch” tactics – pander to the folks in the neighborhoods while making sure that her slumlord buddies were protected. Now an additional possibility has been brought to our attention.
This third leg of the stool, if you will, is actually frightening; and I don’t scare easy. What if a newly criminalized noise ordinance was used by the Mayor AGAINST her political opponents?
Crazy you say? Let’s look at the possibilities and then we’ll look at a real, live example of how Barrie Tilghman, through her people has used the criminal justice system to abuse one of her opponents.
Think about it.
The city enacts a noise ordinance without any objective measure. While Chief Webster paid lip service to Councilwomen Shields and Cohen about “looking into” an objective measurement such as decibel levels there appears to be no concrete plan to develop one. I’m willing to bet that the ordinance will be adopted with “promises” to amend it later.
Once the ordinance is adopted, Chief Webster and a few select officers will have the opportunity to harass and intimidate certain taxpaying citizens who are not “Friends of Barrie”. The police show up at your door. They state that there has been a complaint. They can then arrest you, claiming that you were not sufficiently cooperative. At this point you are taken down to the station, in handcuffs. You are fingerprinted, booked and thrown into a holding cell with some of the city’s “better element”.
Now comes the fun part. You are hauled before a magistrate (I believe they call them Commissioners in Maryland). The magistrate sets your bail at $50,000 (no I didn’t say $500). Do you have $50,000. Of course you don’t; but you’ll post a property bond instead. Wait. The magistrate demands proof that you have in excess of $50,000 equity in your home before you will be released. It’s 10PM on a Friday night. The courthouse is closed until Monday morning, unless Monday is a government holiday. Do you have $5,000 for a bondsman? Sure, I always keep $5,000 – $10,000 around the house for those little emergencies.
You get to spend Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, and possibly Monday in the county jail until you have a chance to stand before a judge. Sure, the case will be dismissed – but I bet you’ll keep your big mouth shut after that little experience. Won’t you?
I know, this is ridiculous. We live in America. This kind of foolishness simply can’t happen. Right?
WRONG! Not only can it happen, it has happened to at least one thorn in Barrie Tilghman’s side.
Think back to the spring of 2006. Then Salisbury Zoo Director Jim Rapp wanted to keep Joe Albero at bay. To appease him, the Mayor and her “council leadership” concocted the now infamous “Albero laws”. These laws were designed to keep Joe Albero away from the zoo; probably to prevent him from taking any more pictures of dead or dying animals.
Of course Joe, never known as a shrinking violet, simply had to go to the zoo.
Given his new sense of power of his arch-nemisis, Jim Rapp promptly had Mr. Albero charged with all sorts of heinous crimes. Remember folks, we’re talking about public trespass here. Remember those “Keep Off the Grass” signs when we were kids?
Joe Albero was held on $50,000 bond. No, this is not a joke! A copy of the bond appears below (you can download a copy here):
Since Joe lives in Delaware, his father-in-law had to post a property bond for him; and its my understanding that the magistrate gave Mr. Goetz a hard time about that. All of this and the charges were eventually dismissed.
Now it’s a tad difficult to plan on one of your opponents committing public trespass. Plus you have the little problem that there might be witnesses about. Sure, you could stop someone for a traffic violation, but that doesn’t have quite the same affect as throwing them into lockup. Ah! A noise ordinance with the power to arrest and the threat of a possible 90 day jail sentence hanging over your head. Even though the charge will probably be dismissed, a few days in jail will really mess with some people’s heads. Now that’s a great way to let your opponents know to shut up and take it like a man.
It would only take a couple of arrests for a group of activists to say “This simply isn’t worth it!”. In the meantime, the slumlords are protected and Barrie gets to tell the hoi polloi that she’s looking out for their best interest.
Technorati Tags: Salisbury, politics, salisburypolitics, harrassment, civilliberties
The foregoing is a prime reason that the SPD needs to be using decibel meters in noise cases; that officers need to have meter readings both to charge violators and to support their cases as evidence in court. Without this firm evidence, neither an arrest nor a conviction should be possible. Once meters are purchased and officers trained/certified in their use, the noise ordinance should be revisited to reflect the improved capacity of officers to gauge whether a crime is being committed or not. Until then, the SPD will not have the tools it needs to do the job fairly and effectively.
There is a problem with the scenario you create, Cato: In order to buy into it, one has to assume that Ms. Tilghman is a conniving, evil, self-centered person concerned only with feeding her own ego by surrounding herself with sycophants, and skirting common sense and good government in order to reward her “friends”! ooops! ……never mind
We’re all glad you caught yourself, Titus. If the condition persists, try a visit to the mayor’s round table (eat only a light meal beforehand.) A cure is virtually guaranteed.
Any law that keeps Joe Albero at BAY is a good law. He has proven himeself to be nothing more than a liar and to be a thorn in the side of people who are trying the best they can.
In all seriousness, this noise law is stupid. I witneesed first hand police enter a home illegally because college kids were watching TV to loud. It was Monday night football and they were not drinking. They started to search the house util I threw them out. This law is NOT needed and will only prove to give those FEW, not all, idiots more power than they need.
You can see the future now:
Debbie Campbell’s son does a yard sale in their driveway (is this deja vu, or what).
He says “WOW” when a customer agrees to pay full price for something, or (if you don’t like that scenario) Barrie tells him to stop and he says “but lady, I’m just a kid.”
He is arrested for making noise.
Ms. Campbell sees what happened and when she questions the officer about the charge she is arrested.
Barrie arrives at Terry Cohen’s house …
And the following is not a joke — the Commissioner who set Albero’s bail bond at $50,000 should be fired forthwith.
Mr. Robinson:
Please go play with the other kids.
Ro-blow-sin, don’t you have your own blog to rule the world now that you have nothing else useful to do with your life? Let us know what you want to be when you grow up, that’s OK you want to be a fireman today and a garbage man the next, we expect no less.
So… let me understand this, because on it’s face, your “example” is, quite frankly, utterly retarded.
You are conflating the potential selective enforcement of a noise ordinance with a scenario where someone was ordered by the court to keep their distance from a location, deliberately violated that order, and was (according to your description) arrested.
I read this, and I’ve really got to think to myself “What in the world is going on in your head?” What precisely is the point you’re try to make here? That a vaguely constructed noise ordinance is possibly subject to abusive enforcement because Joe Albero was arrested for deliberately violating a court order to stay away from a specific location?
Is this what passes for deep thinking in this neck of the woods? This is beyond apple and oranges, this is apples and zebras. The name “Cato’ implies practical wisdom, if this little missive is indicative of your cognitive skills you had best apply for village idiot.
Oh Earlybird, if only it were true.
Mr. Albero was not arrested for violating a court order. That is not what I wrote, and if you will examine the list of charges on the bond sheet you will notice that contempt is not one of the charges listed.
It is my understanding that part of the deal in dropping all of the charges was that Mr. Albero would not go on zoo property. To the best of my knowledge he has obeyed that agreement. But remember, this was AFTER the arrest at the zoo.
If you cannot understand the civil liberties implications of a $50,000 bail bond for a MISDEMEANOR arrest, then I’m sorry. You must have more money than sense.
The excessive amount of the bond was the whole point of the post. IF (remember, I can’t predict the future any better than you can) the Mayor and Chief Webster decided to selectively enforce this noise ordinance (which would be very easy to do) AND a political opponent of Barrie’s was arrested and held on a $50,000 bond they could easily spend several days in jail before a JUDGE would reduce the bond.
With all due respect, I will match my rhetorical and analytical skills against your’s any day. Next time get someone to read the post to you.
Earlybird thinks he is Tacitus, acts like Tiberius.
The bond was excessive, even if he does live in Delmar. He owns property worth more than $50,000 in Maryland that could have been siezed if he fled, why would he even flee? Give me a break…..
Re your mad rhetorical skillz, your portent of the dire possibilities for selective political oppression contained in the aforesaid noise ordinance is quite possibly the silliest, and most cartoonish variation of a standard issue tin foil hat argument I’ve ever seen. Whether the municipal authorities of Salisbury can construct a common sense noise ordinance with appropriate penalties, and bond requirements is one issue, and a completely valid topic for discussion.
To claim, however, that “The excessive amount of the bond was the whole point of the post” is a silly little fig leaf, to say the least. The article was all about the danger posed by an elaborate multi-level conspiracy that would make up charges out of thin air, and that this would be implemented by a throughly corrupt police department. In your breathless example any “danger” to innocents posed in this scenario, irrespective of the bond amount, requires the construction of a potential conspiracy that involves a coordinated campaign of selective harassment of political enemies, massive corruption throughout the police ranks from the top levels all the way to the street, and directing it all the diabolical Mayor and her flying monkey henchmen.
This hysterical hyper ventilating is, for the lack of better term, just plain pig stupid. That I have to diagram this out for you is as sad as the notion that you can’t even logically parse out the content of your own posts. Tilghman is not an especially adept or skilled administrator, nor in truth, a particularly good Mayor. The only thing that saves her is that those opposing her are even bigger nincompoops than she is. Your article re the noise ordinance is Prima-Facie evidence of that fact.
“…. and your little dog too!”
Try this word out for size, IDIOT!