Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police chief explains Mount Pleasant's "unreasonable noises" ordinance and enforcement limits
Summary
Mount Pleasant's police chief told the council the city enforces an existing "unreasonable noises" ordinance that relies on officer discretion and the officer's presence to witness violations; the chief said officers commonly issue warnings and that recordings and time-stamped evidence can help but do not replace on-scene observation.
The Mount Pleasant Police Chief explained the city's current noise rules to council on July 7, describing the primary ordinance (codified as an "unreasonable noises" offense) and how officers handle complaints.
The chief told the council that the ordinance allows officers to act when noise "annoys, distresses, or disturbs the quiet comfort or repose of any person of reasonable sensibility" in the vicinity, and that enforcement typically requires an officer to witness the misdemeanor in their presence. "They do respond to these calls frequently," the chief said, but noted officers must often prioritize emergency responses over noise enforcement.
The chief reviewed commonly handled complaints (loud parties, modified mufflers) and said officers often use warnings or "fix-it" tickets for equipment issues rather than immediately issuing citations. On construction, the chief said existing language sets permissible hours (city materials refer to examples such as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and gives businesses clear guidance when projects are permitted.
On evidence and recordings, the chief said recorded audio or video can help staff identify problems and provide timestamps but may not demonstrate the precise location or loudness in a way that satisfies an officer for misdemeanor enforcement. "It never hurts" to record and time-stamp incidents, he said, recommending residents call dispatch and coordinate with neighborhood officers to give officers an opportunity to observe recurring violations.
Council members thanked the chief for the overview and staff said the presentation was intended to inform the public and reduce confusion about the ordinance rather than to propose changes; staff said they would continue bringing informational topics to council and the public as needed.
