One of the more “civil” commentators to the FB Post was a Mr. Shaun D. Parker who was extremely upset relevant to my comment pertaining to the article. Mr. Parker performed an Internet search in an attempt to find any “dirt” that might be published regarding my vehicular noise enforcement initiative in Houston and my strict enforcement of vehicular noise laws that involved an untold number of citations issued, arrests made, incredible controversy initiated by Motorcycle Rights Organizations (MRO’s), multiple biker/city hall protests, a threat by a loud biker (I had incarcerated) publicly made in the Council Chambers of City Hall against the Mayor and City Council, a request that I be shot in the head like a pig…on and on the fighting, controversy, the cowardliness of Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker and Chief McClelland…the threats, anger, lies, obfuscation, harassment…all pertaining to the Loud Biker Cult[ure’s] perceived “right” to usurp the rule of law and use their illegally LOUD, illegally equipped motorcycles to audibly assault the American Citizen at will…this was not and IS NOT acceptable!
In response to the accusations enumerated by Mr. Parker, I simply referred him to an article I published that directly contradicts and establishes the “truth” about the lies and obfuscation of the Loud Biker Cult[ure] and the MRO’s as they cried like a chastised youth in response to my strict enforcement of their juvenile, illegal, LOUD behavior resulting from the operation of an illegally equipped, non-compliant, dangerously LOUD motorcycle on our public roadways. See: https://rickeyholtsclaw.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/loud-biker-mro-obfuscation-truth-please/
Finally, after having reached a dead-end in his feverish attempt to discredit my vehicular NOISE enforcement initiative, Mr. Parker began a personal attack on me and my enforcement “methodology” used to cite and, on occasion, incarcerate the Loud Biker Cult[ure]. The accusations of Mr. Parker, perjury and other crimes, are serious and I personally feel it is necessary to educate the general public on the “truth” about motorcycle enforcement protocol so that you, the concerned citizen, are better informed and more knowledgeable relevant to motorcycle noise enforcement protocol in conjunction with the parameters of the elements contained in a majority of State enacted muffler laws. Please permit me to first share the relevant comment from Mr. Shaun D. Parker to Concerned Citizens Against Loud Motorcycles as published on 9/6/2016.
Shaun D. Parker to Concerned Citizens Against Loud Motorcycles CCALMNo, you have not provided the ‘facts’, you’ve simply repeated the same information time and again without providing any valid third party sources, instead pointing to your previous statements made here and elsewhere as if simply repeating yourself constitutes additional evidence of your statements. I have read some of your writings and frankly, you seem to have serious issues which, instead of resolving to better yourself, you are taking out on people under the authority of your badge, and for which you have been able to find a law to use as an excuse and a bludgeon. And where information from third parties does not suit your purpose, you delete it.
And speaking of that law: when you were issuing the noise tickets, what methodology did you use? I have not seen any mention of testing equipment. Surely you did not do this simply based on what you heard, since we know the senses can be deceived by the context of the environment. And since the laws which you are using is the basis for your enforcement specify an exact decibel level, you need to be able to testify exactly to the level of the violation, not just that it sounded like it to you.
Did you use a consumer decibel meter? They are fine tools, but they are certainly not accurate enough for legal work. They’re not calibrated to the degree of accuracy that one would expect to be used in a law-enforcement. Calibration for accuracy is a standard expectation for radar guns, for example, and even those devices require regular testing and recalibration to ensure that they are operating correctly. Without those testings and recalibration’s the results of a radar gun are disputable. So surely you did not use a simple consumer grade decibel meter, did you? And what of your qualifications to use it properly? A radar gun is a fairly simple point-and-shoot operation, but if one does not understand the principle of how it works the gun can be improperly used and the information that is given can be seriously misinterpreted. The same applies with a decimal meter. So what is your certification for operating such a device for purposes of law-enforcement? And did you use the meter and a certified anechoic chamber? The only proper way to measure sound levels from a specific source is within the confines of such a chamber since otherwise the readings will be contaminated by environmental noise as well as reflections of the source off of other surfaces, which is also a contaminant to accurate readings.
If you did not utilize such testing proceedures to confirm the exact level of sound coming from the vehicle cited, then you are at the very least guilty of making in admissible statements in court. At worst, You’re guilty of perjury. So if you want to play the letter of the law, unless you are probably certified in the use of sound measurement devices and you used properly certified equipment and locations to verify the sound levels in support of your citations, you are guilty of crimes.
1) If information from 3rd parties did not suit my purpose, I would have deleted and banned Shaun Parker days ago. Though you are uninformed regarding motorcycle noise enforcement, you’ve at least maintained a sense of common decency in your comments; therefore, I’ve permitted you to carry-on thus far.
2) My “methodology” used while “issuing those tickets” was sufficient to maintain a 99.8% conviction-rate for all noisy vehicle cases brought before me for trial. If you had read the article, https://rickeyholtsclaw.wordpress.com/…/the-truth…/ you would know and understand the “methodology” I used and why it is not necessary or permitted, due to redundancy and the statutory elements, that a sound meter be used for motorcycle noise enforcement protocol. Just for your personal information Shaun… Since you won’t take the time to read the article, let me provide you with an overview of motorcycle noise enforcement protocol…please read carefully and think about what you’re reading:
A “sound meter” cannot be used in motorcycle enforcement protocol unless the applicable muffler statute is written for the inclusion of said instrument. If the muffler law does not explicitly define the parameters of sound meter testing, the prosecutor cannot introduce the instrument as evidence for the State.
Let’s consider Texas’ muffler statute, § 547.604 as an example…Texas requires that…
(a) A motor vehicle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working condition that continually operates to prevent excessive or unusual noise. (Emphasis mine)
(b) A person may not use a muffler cutout, bypass, or similar device on a motor vehicle.
Here is Arkansas’ State muffler law, § 27-37-601,
(a) Every motor vehicle shall, at all times, be equipped with a factory-installed muffler or one duplicating factory specifications, in good working order and in constant operation, to prevent excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke. (Emphasis mine)
(b) No person shall use on a motor vehicle upon the public roads, highways, streets, or alleys of this state, nor shall any person sell for use on a motor vehicle upon the public roads, highways, streets, or alleys of this state, a muffler, other than as defined in subsection (a) of this section, cutout, bypass, similar device, or any type device which produces excessive or unusual noise or smoke. (Emphasis mine)
There is no mention of a decibel level limitation or the implementation of the SAE J2825 testing procedure; therefore, the inclusion of a sound meter is not permitted because the instrument, as evidence, is not applicable/admissible – the law does not allow for it – understand?
Okay, so then, how does a LEO enforce what appears to be, to the lay-person, a completely subjective and unenforceable muffler statute? Understand that Arkansas’ muffler law is vastly superior to Texas’ in that Arkansas specifically requires the “factory-installed muffler” or a muffler conforming to the specifications of the factory-installed muffler, but both State statutes contain the elements “excessive or unusual noise.”
Shaun, what is “excessive or unusual noise” emanating from a motorcycle’s exhaust mechanism? Please stay with me here Shaun…okay? First, let’s tackle the subjective concerns of the statute elements “excessive or unusual noise.” If you research stare decisis/case law/legal precedent – specifically, Aaron C. Aguilar v. The State of Texas (2008)–Appeal from County Court at Law No 9 of Bexar County (http://law.justia.com/…/fourth-court-of…/2008/20953.html) you will discover the opinion of a Justice Catherine Stone who clearly articulates within her memorandum that a police officer does have the authority to “subjectively” determine what is “excessive or unusual noise” emanating from a motor vehicle…with that legal precedent in hand, the subjective argument is nullified.
Okay, with the subjective argument out of the way, how does a LEO enforce a muffler law containing the elements “excessive or unusual noise”? Again Shaun, what is “excessive or unusual noise” emanating from a motorcycle’s exhaust mechanism? You will certainly agree that for something to be “excessive” or “unusual” there must be an objective standard by which to make that comparison, yes?
Well, we have an objective standard that has already been thoroughly tested for sound emissions, permanently labeled and tampering provisions enacted concerning this “objective standard.” That objective standard is the OEM, Factory-installed muffler that has been thoroughly tested under strict scientifically controlled testing parameters, permanently labeled to show that it is compliant with the 80 dB(A) “total” motorcycle noise emissions restriction and tampering prohibitions have been clearly articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations and within the motorcycle’s owners manual stating that it is a violation of Federal Law to remove, tamper with the sound emissions controls on that motorcycle. Therefore Shaun, since we already have a thoroughly tested objective standard i.e. the very quiet OEM factory-installed muffler, all the inspecting officer must do during his inspection of the noise offending motorcycle is first…look to see if the EPA label is present on the muffler – second, does the noise emissions of the suspect exhaust exceed that of the quiet OEM muffler?
NOTE: Shaun, some 60% to 80% of the motorcycles operating on the roadways within our communities have had the US EPA Certified, factory-installed muffler removed and replaced with a “NOT FOR ROAD USE” “Closed Course Only” “Competition” exhaust that is illegal when operated on our public roadways. These illegally loud aftermarket exhausts emit four-to-eight times (measured on a logarithmic scale) the legal “total” motorcycle noise emissions of 80 dB(A) – and NOTE … that 80 dB(A) limitation is the “minimum” level of motorcycle noise emissions protection for the general public. It is the responsibility of local and State law enforcement to ensure that these Federal motorcycle emissions restrictions/mandates remain in compliance on every street motorcycle operated on our public roadways. Unfortunately, our local and State law enforcement entities have failed the American Citizen miserably by means of nonfeasance/non-enforcement, unlawful participation in the illegal conduct while our municipal officials have prostituted themselves via hosting annual NOISE thug-fests called motorcycle rallies where these officials, acting under the color of law, whore themselves and deny the protective intent of Constitutionally valid muffler laws in order to fill their respective coffers with the disposable income of the Loud Biker Cult[ure]. In other words, city officials neglect to enforce the applicable muffler laws specifically enacted for the protection of the health and welfare of the general public in lieu of filling their coffers with the disposable income of the law-breakers…an unconstitutional and disgraceful violation of the 14th Amendment.
Shaun, if the muffler is properly labeled yet the sound emissions are obviously excessive, check for signs of tampering and the removal of part or all of the acoustical dampening material in the muffler canister. I hope you’re following me Shaun…you see, a sound meter is NOT required or even permitted to examine, cite and arrest the violator if necessary. Again, what is “excessive or unusual noise”?
That 80 dB(A) “total” motorcycle noise emissions restriction stipulated by the US EPA within their Code of Federal Regulations was designated for a specific reason…that 80 dB(A) is the “minimum” level of motorcycle noise emissions protection for the general public.
Shaun, are you aware that the US EPA, when they wanted to reduce the total MC noise emissions from 83 dB(A) back in 1986, the EPA actually wanted to reduce it to 78 dB(A), but Suzuki complained about the excessive manufacturing costs of reducing noise emissions to 78 dB(A) and the EPA compromised and settled on 80 dB(A)? So then Shaun, if 80 dB(A) is the “minimum” level of noise emissions protection for the general public, I ask you, what is “excessive or unusual noise” emanating from a motorcycle’s exhaust system?
That’s right Shaun, any sound greater than that which is emitted by the OEM – Factory-installed muffler. Also Shaun, remember that the 80 dB(A) emissions restriction is the “total” motorcycle noise emissions restriction. What do I mean by “total” motorcycle noise emissions?
When a make and model of a particular motorcycle is seeking US EPA certification for street use, the motorcycle is tested within scientifically controlled conditions at full acceleration up to maximum brake horsepower and said motorcycle is tested for “total” sound emissions at 49.2 feet on each side of the test motorcycle. Total motorcycle noise…that is EVERY MOVING PART IN ITS TOTALITY is measured and the sum total of all of those moving parts cannot exceed 80 dB(A)…Shaun, think how quiet that factory-installed muffler must be to suppress engine noise to a point that it does not contribute to a “total” MC noise emissions over 80 dB(A).
Again, here is our “objective” standard for “comparative sound analysis” for enforcement protocol. Why muddy the waters of vehicular noise enforcement protocol with another sound meter test when the US EPA has already required said testing for the OEM, Factory-installed muffler? Subjective analysis to initiate the traffic stop is authorized by legal precedent and the issuance of a citation, incarceration, impounding the offending vehicle, is authorized by comparing the sound of the suspect exhaust to that of the quiet factory-installed muffler – and – believe me Shaun…there is absolutely no difficulty in differentiating the output of an OEM, factory-installed Harley muffler on a Dyna compared to that of a set of (NOT FOR ROAD USE) Vance and Hines Short Shots or Big Radius that are audible for up to and over one-mile under hard acceleration…Please advise of any other questions regarding motorcycle noise enforcement?