HOLMES BEACH – It was a win for Holmes Beach police officers when Special Magistrate Michael Connolly ruled in favor of upholding a noise violation citation, assessing a $175 fine.
Property owner James Daniel Clark appeared during a Feb. 10 hearing to contest a noise violation citation received by his son, Justin Clark, on Nov. 27, 2021.
HBPD Officer Michael Van Horne testified before Connolly about the incident, which happened at a home Clark owns at 240 S. Harbor Drive in Holmes Beach. Van Horne said he responded to a noise complaint at the address. When he got out of his vehicle about 200 feet away from the home on the street, he said loud music was plainly audible. Upon walking up to the gate to the backyard, Van Horne and Sgt. Thomas Fraser say they saw several young people in a hot tub. Justin Clark responded to their summons to the gate and, with his father on the phone, answered police questions and received the noise violation.
Body camera footage from the two officers confirmed their version of events, also bringing to light that Justin Clark admitted that underage drinking was taking place on the property.
Speaking on behalf of James Daniel Clark was attorney Michele Grantham. Grantham argued that the neighbor who reported the incident had called multiple times since 2019 to report issues at the property and that the November incident was the only time that a citation was issued. She also argued that the police responding to the call had previously used a decibel reader to determine if a noise violation had taken place and did not use it this time, instead using the plainly audible portion of the city’s noise ordinance, along with seven standards outlined in the ordinance to determine that a violation had taken place. Grantham said the plainly audible language and seven standards were too subjective.
Tokajer disagreed. He testified on behalf of his officers and said the noise ordinance allows officers to determine if a violation occurs based on reasonableness and their own common sense, even if that noise takes place during the day, as this one did. With the body cameras unable to amplify sound, what was heard on the camera footage was an accurate depiction of the noise at the time of the citation, he said.
“This is clearly a violation,” Tokajer said of the music, which caused the disturbance.
Though he wasn’t onsite at the time of the incident, James Daniel Clark testified during the hearing on behalf of his son, saying he believed the group of college sophomores were watching a football game and that was the source of the noise. While being questioned by Augello, he admitted that the noise heard in the body camera footage did not sound like a football game.
After hearing testimony on both sides, Connolly ruled that a violation had taken place and ordered Clark to pay a fine of $175 plus a $10 administrative fee.
Related coverage
Bali Hai owners hit with more code fines
Fines levied for Coconuts owners
