Morning-After Blues May Include Big Fine for Noisy Revelers

Disturbed by the drain on police manpower required to quiet noisy parties, San Diego County officials are considering an ordinance that could leave rowdy revelers with financial headaches to go along with any discomfort caused by what they drank the night before.

Under an ordinance being drafted by the county counsel’s office, the hosts of loud, disruptive parties could be fined, perhaps as much as $500, if sheriff’s deputies have to respond a second time to bring the gatherings under control.

Patterned after a measure adopted in 1987 by Fullerton, the so-called “Second-Call Ordinance” is designed primarily as an economic deterrent. However, a secondary purpose of the ordinance, similar to ones recently approved by the San Diego and Santee city councils, is to allow the Sheriff’s Department to recoup the cost of its services in breaking up parties that remain boisterous after deputies’ first visit.

“This isn’t just a matter of parties getting a little noisy or out of control,” said Supervisor Susan Golding, whose proposal that county administrators prepare such an ordinance was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors last week. “We’re talking about situations that create safety problems, tie up police resources and cost money to respond to. There’s no reason the taxpayers should have to pay for that.”

2,600 Noise Complaints

During the last half of 1988, sheriff’s deputies and San Diego city police responded to noise complaints at nearly 2,600 parties, expending about 2,400 man-hours, according to a report prepared by Sheriff’s Lt. Gerald Lipscomb.

“It’s becoming a major problem, if it isn’t already,” sheriff’s spokesman Bob Takeshta said. “It’s not as simple as just walking up, knocking on the door and asking people to quiet down. And it’s not something that one or two officers can do in 10 minutes.”

Assistant Sheriff Jack Drown explained that it is not uncommon for as many as 2 dozen officers to be dispatched to break up disruptive parties, and some of them remain on the scene several hours. Calls prompted by noise complaints from neighbors divert officers from their rounds, reducing protection in other areas, he added.

“A lot of people might just think of this as a minor nuisance situation,” Drown said. “But, when you have anywhere from five to 20 officers tied up for a couple hours, you can see the impact it has on overall police service. On weekends in some residential areas, you could spend just about all your time responding to one of these complaints after another.”

Now, when officers respond to such calls, they usually notify the homeowner or person in charge of the party that a complaint about noise has been received and ask their cooperation in quieting down. If that warning does not prove to be sufficient and officers are summoned a second time, they disperse the party and can issue misdemeanor citations on charges such as disturbing the peace.

Economic Leverage

Hoping to reduce the number of callbacks, county officials envision the proposed ordinance, expected to return to the supervisors for action this summer, as potent economic leverage.

“Usually, you’re dealing with teen-agers or young adults who have been drinking and are feeling no pain, so logic doesn’t always do the trick,” Drown said. “But, if the person in charge knows that he’s going to get hit in the wallet if we have to come back a second time, it could be a different story.”

The Fullerton law specifies that when police must make a second call to break up a noisy or dangerous party, the officers are “deemed to be on special security assignment over and above the services normally provided.” Accordingly, the host of the party can be fined up to $500 to compensate the city for the police and equipment.

“We haven’t raised that much money through fines, but that shows that the program has been working,” said Fullerton Community Services Officer Cecil Reece, whose city’s ordinance has been copied by about a dozen other Orange County cities. “We never looked at it as a revenue generator. The purpose was to minimize the number of responses we have to make, and it’s definitely cut down on the number of times we have to go back for a second time to break up noisy parties.”

Though the specifics of the San Diego County proposal remain to be worked out, county leaders say that any fines imposed under it probably would be levied against the occupant of the dwelling where the party is held. In cases where minors hold a party with no adults present, their parents could be held accountable.

“The Fullerton concept is an excellent method of gaining financial as well as physical control of out-of-control events,” Lipscomb said.

When the issue was debated by the board last week, several supervisors said they expect complaints that fines are heavy-handed, as well as excuses from people hoping to avoid paying them. From the supervisors’ perspective, however, those concerns are more than outweighed by the costs and detrimental effect on law enforcement the many calls stemming from noisy parties.

“I’m sure we can expect people to say, ‘I wasn’t home,’ or, ‘I shouldn’t be responsible,”’ Supervisor Brian Bilbray said. “I can’t wait for them to come here and say that. Because then I’ll ask, ‘Well, who is responsible?’ It’s certainly not the taxpayers of San Diego.”