Citizen Portal
Sign In

Council narrows Residential Tranquility bill after amendment to require dispersal warnings before arrests

5760546 · July 2, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Council advanced the Residential Tranquility Amendment Act (Bill 26‑189) and an emergency version addressing amplified noise targeted at residences; an amendment to require an order to disperse and warnings before arrests was proposed and debated (it failed), but Council adopted a modified statutory cleanup and passed the measure as amended.

Council member Brooke Pinto moved the Residential Tranquility Amendment Act of 2025 (Bill 26‑189), a measure narrow in scope that targets use of amplified sound to harass residents in residential neighborhoods during restricted hours.

Council member Mary Nadeau offered an amendment requiring enforcement to follow First Amendment dispersal procedures — specifically an order to disperse with warnings before arrests. Pinto and others noted dispersal procedures already exist in Title 5 (the First Amendment dispersal code), and Pinto argued the proposed amendment would be duplicative and, as drafted, less protective than existing law. Nadeau said the amendment added clarity and assurance to the public and implementers. The amendment failed on a voice vote that members later acknowledged should have been recorded; the chair ruled reconsideration out of order. The Committee nonetheless approved the bill as amended (voice vote) and later approved an emergency declaration and emergency amendment to avoid a gap while the permanent bill proceeds.

Council members who supported the bill said it addresses instances where activists set up high‑volume amplification aimed at private residences (the Kalorama example was cited) and that the measure applies only to amplified sound targeted at residences during certain hours, not to ordinary protest activity. Opponents cautioned about First Amendment implications and urged reliance on existing law and MPD resources. The Committee moved both the permanent and emergency versions to the legislative agenda.