Questions on incident

To the editor:
On Sunday, Feb. 13, a gentleman was arrested by the Portland Police Department for having his semi running. A complaint was received by police that a semi was running on South Bridge Street. After locating the owner, the patrolman advised that the semi needed to be shut off. The reason for the notification was that noise from the semi was “disturbing the peace.” Which begs the question: What is disturbing the peace, and by what criteria would a citation be issued? Is the violation when the semi owner leaves his rig running? Is it when the neighbor calls to complain? Or is it when a patrolman’s order has been ignored?
Needless to say, the semi running set off a series of events. The conclusion being that Mr. Vance was arrested for theft and disorderly conduct.
Were the charges justified? Don’t know. I will address the issue of the city signs first. We know that the signs were found in Mr. Vance’s garage. Does that mean he stole them? By no means. How many people have found unusual items laying in their yard on a Sunday morning? Is a person responsible for returning lost items? It would be the right thing to do, but criminal if you don’t? Other than the Portland Police Department, who can say how those signs ended up in Mr. Vance’s garage? Was a warrant obtained? Is it still fashionable for teenagers to decorate their rooms with road signs? Parents, that could be a felony.
The disorderly conduct charge is mostly likely a result of a patrolman with an attitude.
In this particular incident, with the first notification being disregarded, a follow-up visit was required. Now the officer’s authority is challenged. And the situation snowballs.
The threat of being charged with disorderly conduct is a tactic used quite often by the Portland Police Department to gain control of the immediate problem. These problems can be anything from a barking dog complaint, loud music next door, husband and wife having a loud disagreement to a semi running. What do all of the examples I have listed have in common? Noise. Does the city of Portland have a noise ordinance?
Here’s how the situation could have been handled. 1. The patrolman receives the complaint. 2. He investigates and determines that a violation has occurred. 3. He writes citation. 4. He knocks on Mr. Vance’s door and says, “Mr. Vance, you are in violation of the city noise ordinance by having your semi running. Please appear the third Wednesday of next month at city court. Have a nice evening.”
Let the court determine if in fact Mr. Vance was disturbing the peace. Let the court determine why the rights of the complaining party are of greater value than the rights of Mr. Vance. Have testimony from the responding patrolman how he determined the decibel level of the running semi. Introduce into evidence a copy of the noise ordinance, with its clear and concise boundaries.
If the city does not have a noise ordinance, I see no violation. Would the same consideration be given a complaining party who lives next to the city baseball diamonds during the summer? Cities are necessary. They are the centers of our medical, financial and commercial interests. But they can also be over-regulating.
Thank God for the country. Where neighbors are neighbors and friends.
Steve Craig
Portland[[In-content Ad]]