Bill allowing use of photo noise monitoring moves to Senate floor

Yesterday, in an effort to curb noise pollution stemming from aftermarket mufflers, the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee voted favorably on a bill that would allow Connecticut towns to implement photo noise violation monitoring devices.

The passage of this bill would mark the third time in the past year the state of Connecticut has approved municipal usage of surveillance devices to aid in traffic enforcement, following a bill passed last year that approved usage of speed and red light cameras.

While Committee members unanimously agreed that noise pollution is a problem worth addressing, some members showed skepticism towards the efficacy of such monitoring devices, as well as the ethics of monitoring devices in general . Proponents of the bill stressed the need for these devices due to the current difficulty municipalities face in punishing noise violators.

“It’s problematic to say the least, the noise pollution that’s occurring across the state due to these aftermarket products, and enforcement has been incredibly difficult,” said Sen. Christine Cohen, Chair of the Transportation Committee. “I’m hopeful we can implement a program statewide to reduce noise pollution.”

Cohen said the Transportation Committee has discussed the topic and has found data showing increased usage of these aftermarket mufflers. Cohen said that enforcement is often made difficult as the owners of these aftermarket mufflers often repair or replace them with approved mufflers before taking their cars in for inspection, and then switch back to their noisier mufflers right after.

These noise violation monitoring devices consist of decibel monitoring instruments attached to cameras. When the device records a sound that is louder than the permitted decibel limit, it snaps a photograph of the vehicle. The bill would require these devices to be used by trained and certified operators and would require any photograph taken by the instruments to be reviewed by a police officer or municipal employee before a ticket is sent out. First-time violators would receive a written warning, second-time offenders would receive $100 fines, and third and subsequent violations would be punished with $250 fines.

Municipalities would have to make an effort to randomize the locations in which these devices are placed and make efforts “to the extent possible” at limiting the devices to photographing only the license plates of vehicles instead of vehicle occupants. Municipalities would have to do annual calibration checks on their devices, performed at calibration laboratories, that would provide certificates to ensure the device passed inspection.

Noise violators would be let off the hook if they’re emergency vehicle operators using sirens, if the device was found to be improperly calibrated, or if the violation came about as a result of a faulty muffler and the vehicle owner shows proof that it was replaced or repaired within 14 days of the violation. Owners of stolen vehicles who have filed missing vehicle reports would not be held liable if a violation stemming from their vehicle occurred while it was stolen.

The law also stipulates that personally identifiable information gathered from these devices, such as license plate numbers or photographs of drivers, would not be retained by the municipality or device vendors “unless such information is necessary for the charging, collection, and enforcement of fines.” Data gathered from these devices would, however, be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Municipalities would also have to submit annual reports to the Committee containing the total number of violations recorded by each device, total number of warnings and citations issued, number and results of hearings requests, amount of revenue the devices brought in, and any costs incurred on the municipality resulting from the devices’ use.

While the bill originally contained language that would introduce a 30 percent sales tax on the sale or repair of any aftermarket mufflers that increase the sound profile of vehicles, it was removed on the grounds of unenforceability, as explained by Committee Chair State Rep. Maria Horn (D-Salisbury).

“We weren’t yet in a position to figure out how to enforce it,” said Horn. “I believe there was widespread, at least in our committee discussion, support to try and go after the sale of these devices that are clearly sold with the intention to produce a lot of bothersome noise, but it wasn’t clear yet in our language how we would go about enforcing that.”

Horn said that some sellers may not be aware of which mufflers are noisy or not, putting the onus on the state to prove intent for such muffler sales, which would muddy the waters around enforcing such a tax.

State Rep. Lezlye Zupkus (R-Prospect) said she preferred the sales tax route, because she’s skeptical about how the devices will be able to identify violators.

“When the municipal worker or a policeman has to review it, and they see a picture,” said Zupkus. “If there’s three cars there, how are they going to know which car is the noisemaker?”

She argued that taxing the purchasers of these mufflers would narrow the punishment more acutely to potential noise violators themselves, and would be more “fair than picking a car out of a picture.” Zupkus then asked if on-duty police officers are currently permitted to pull over cars that they themselves witnessed commit a noise violation.

Sen. John Fonfara (D-Hartford) said that officers are allowed to, but often have more pressing matters to attend to. He assured Zupkus that those who are incorrectly charged with violations can offer proof of their car’s compliance with permitted noise levels to defend against any tickets they’re issued.

Rep. Holly Cheeseman (R-East Lyme) said she supports the bill, but echoed Zupkus’ concerns around its potential enforcement.

“If you receive this violation, yes, you may have a rebuttable defense, but you as a single mom now have to take a day off from work and go into the DMV and have your vehicle tested,” said Cheeseman. “I think that may present, for many of our residents, a difficulty.”

Sen. Fonfara said he thought “members may be surprised by the decibel level allowed by state law.”

“It is not quiet,” said Fonfara. “I think that the concern raised about ‘the average person might have to take the day off,’ I would suspect that that would be a very rare event if someone would have to be ticketed here unless someone intentionally took some steps to make their vehicle louder.”

Rep. Devin Carney (R-Lyme) said he “appreciated the intent” of the bill, but would be voting against it.

“I know noise is an issue, but I do have an issue with the legislature continuing to move towards monitoring devices,” said Carney. “I know we’re allowing municipalities to install them for red lights, we’re allowing speed cameras, it just seems like we’re moving to a place that I’m just not sure we want to go.”

Ultimately, the bill was voted favorably by the committee in a 39-12 vote. It will next be reviewed by the Legislative Commissioner’s Office, and ultimately be voted on at a later date on the Senate floor.

The post Bill allowing use of photo noise monitoring moves to Senate floor appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .