Lynn noise case silenced

LYNN – An appeals court has silenced the Statue of Liberty, affirming that the mascots of Liberty Tax Service violated the city’s noise ordinance with loud drumming, music and dancing.”The testimony at trial by the Commonwealth’s witnesses indicated that the noise emanating from the front of Liberty Tax Service was so loud that it made it difficult to take a nap or to carry on a conversation between 60 and 200 yards away, respectively,” an Appeals Court ruling issued Thursday said.But the business’ owner said she will take the case to the Supreme Judicial Court to protect free speech.”This is a First Amendment case and an important case, and we are going to continue to pursue it at the Massachusetts Supreme Court level,” Liberty Tax Service owner Ariana Murrell-Rosario said Friday. She said Liberty Tax Service franchises throughout the country use the drumming, music and dancing to market services. “And I think that the Supreme Court will get it. They will get the crux of the argument.”Officers responded at 2:31 p.m. March 26, 2012 to Liberty Tax Service on Lewis to find a man playing the drums on the sidewalk, Lynn Police Officer Robert Hogan wrote in a report. The drummer told police that Murrell-Rosario wants him outside attracting customers, which Murrell-Rosario and her husband Marco Rosario confirmed and said they would continue doing, according to police.But neighbors approached and said the drumming and loud radio have been disturbing them for the last month. Officers left and the drumming resumed, according to court documents. Murrell-Rosario videotaped officers as they handed her a violation notice when they returned.Police returned to issue noise violations March 28, March 30 and April 2 of 2012. On the last date, officers took away the employees’ drums, cymbals and bongos, Hogan reported.”This is the fourth time in recent days that we have responded for loud noise and informed them that they were in violation of the city noise ordinance,” Hogan reported. “Each time we inform (them) they just keep on playing the instruments.”Murrell-Rosario and Rosario were issued three citations and a single citation, respectively, for violating a civil city noise ordinance.They took it to court.Murrell-Rosario and Rosario challenged the violations before a clerk magistrate, who found the plaintiffs responsible and ordered them to pay $300 for each violation, according to Essex District Attorney spokesman Carrie Kimball-Monahan.Murrell-Rosario and Rosario refused to pay; and police issued criminal complaints, according to court documents.A jury found both defendants guilty of violating the city noise ordinance/failure to pay a fine after a two-day trial in January 2013. A judge ordered the defendants to pay the fine, Kimball-Monahan said.The defendants filed an appeal in September 2013, saying the noise ordinance is void because it is too vague.”The ordinance says any loud and unnecessary noise too loud – we can’t conform to that,” Murrell-Rosario said Friday. “If there is a decibel reading, that is a precise standard that we can measure, because we can recognize that that is a measure that we can meet.”They also argued the ordinance is too broad and violates their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.”Anytime a city, state or government entity wants to legislate a law that involves First Amendment rights, which are the activities our business was involved in, the ordinance must consider free speech – music, dancing, are all free speech,” Murrell-Rosario said.The appeals court rejected both arguments.”While the defendant may be correct that a noise ordinance that specifies a decibel level might be more precise, implementing such an ordinance would not make it more narrowly tailored,” the court ruled. It also noted the ordinance was “content neutral.” “Finally, the ordinance leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information by using marketing techniques that do not create noise that violates the o