Senate v. Town Of Narragansett, C.A. No. 08-207 S.
Decision Date | 03 March 2010 |
Docket Number | C.A. No. 08-207 S. |
Citation | 707 F.Supp.2d 282 |
Parties | URI STUDENT SENATE, et al., Plaintiffs,v.TOWN OF NARRAGANSETT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
H. Jefferson Melish, Wakefield, RI, for Plaintiffs.
Marc Desisto, Desisto Law, Mark A. McSally, Kelly, Kelleher, Reilly & Simpson, Providence, RI, for Defendants.
Each fall, students at the University of Rhode Island (“URI”) flock to the nearby town of Narragansett (the “Town”) to take advantage of its abundant seasonal housing. However, all do not welcome their presence. The Town council blames student renters for throwing rowdy parties that encourage lawbreaking, such as underage drinking and fighting. To curb this behavior, the Town passed an ordinance banning so-called “unruly gatherings”-ones at which partygoers commit unlawful acts that disturb the neighbors. Students, the URI student government, and owners of rental property in the Town (“Plaintiffs”) believe the enactment is unconstitutional and preempted by a state statute. Seeking to nullify the measure, they have brought this action against the Town, various Town officials, and the Town council (“Defendants”). Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, which turn squarely on the question of whether the “unruly gatherings” ordinance is constitutionally valid on its face.
After holding a hearing on this matter on November 17, 2009, and considering the issues carefully, the Court concludes the Ordinance is indeed constitutional.
I. BackgroundA. The Challenged Ordinance
At bottom, this dispute springs from friction between students and year-round residents of the Town. Approximately twenty-two percent of the housing stock in the Town consists of “seasonal or vacation” rental units, attracting many students during the school year. ( See Agreed Statement of Facts, (“Facts”) ¶ 6.) The Town has long complained of quality-of-life issues resulting from high turnover and absentee landlords. Its concerns include overcrowding, property abuse, excessive traffic, noise, litter, public drunkenness, underage drinking, and fights. In the Town's view, “large gatherings of people, such as parties” are often to blame for these annoyances. The gatherings “frequently become loud and unruly to the point that they constitute a threat to the peace, health, safety, or general welfare of the public.” ( Id.)
To deter such conduct, the Town enacted a nuisance ordinance targeting “unruly gatherings” in 2005 (the “Ordinance”). ( See id.) The key provisions of the current version provide as follows:
The Ordinance thus empowers the Town police to break up parties that they decide are causing a “substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of a neighborhood.” Id. § 46-31(a). The police may only act, however, if the disturbance is a “result” of a “violation of law.” Id. The Ordinance gives a nonexhaustive list of misdemeanors that authorize police to intervene. These include “excessive noise or traffic, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, illegal parking, public drunkenness, public urination, the service of alcohol to minors, fights, disturbances of the peace, and litter.” Id.
After dispersing a gathering determined to be a nuisance, the police must then post a notice “prominently” on the premises. Id. § 46-32(a)-(b). This takes the form of a ten-by-fourteen-inch orange sticker placed on or about the front entrance. ( See Facts ¶ 21-22.) The sticker warns that any further police intervention for a nuisance violation at the same address during a designated time period will result in “joint and several liability” for sponsors of a gathering, the residents and owners of the premises, and any guests who cause the nuisance. The time period runs for the duration of the seasonal housing cycle, during which the sticker must remain in place. If posted September 1 or after, it stays until May 31; if posted after May 31, it stays until September 1. Removing or otherwise tampering with the sticker during that time carries a $100.00 fine for residents and landlords. See Ordinance § 46-32(b). Landlords also receive copies of the notice in the mail. See id. § 46-33.
Section 46-34 of the Ordinance identifies the parties who may be punished for subsequent police responses to houses bearing stickers:
The effect of § 46-34 is to make landlords, residents, party sponsors, and any guests who cause a nuisance jointly and severally liable for any additional unruly gatherings at stickered houses during the same season. However, residents, owners, and sponsors may assert the defense that only “uninvited participants” engaged in illegal conduct. This requires that the resident, owner, or sponsor took “all steps reasonably necessary” to exclude such party-crashers. Id. § 46-34(a)(5). For landlords, these measures may include “active[ ]” attempts to evict a tenant. Id.1 Finally, section 46-35 establishes the penalties for liable parties. Id. § 46-35(a). The first post-sticker police intervention at an unruly gathering during the posting period triggers a fine of $300; the second, $400; and the third, $500. See id. Violators may also receive community service for the first nuisance abatement; it is mandatory starting with the second. See id. § 46-35(b).
The Town compiles information related to enforcing the Ordinance. “Nuisance house lists” display all addresses where police have dispersed an “unruly gathering,” and show which houses have stickers during a given season. (Facts Ex. D.) The Town also maintains a “URI Stats” chart to track data on infractions specifically committed by URI students.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiffs fall into four categories: (i) individual students residing in the Town who have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Rogers, Civil Action No. 12–01229(TFH)
..."Even if catalyzed by government action, harms at the hands of [third] parties cannot serve as ‘plus' factors...." URI Student Senate, 707 F.Supp.2d 282, 298 (D.R.I.2010).5. Whether the Health Care Quality Improvement Act deprives Dr. Doe of property without due-process procedural protectio......
-
Senate v. Town of Narragansett
...on its face. The district court, in a thoughtful and comprehensive rescript, rejected these plaints. See URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 707 F.Supp.2d 282 (D.R.I.2010). After careful consideration, we find that the Town's unorthodox solution to the problems caused by unruly gath......
-
Chaudhry v. Smith
...third parties to these lawsuits, the "plus" cannot be based on the voluntary actions of third parties. URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 707 F.Supp.2d 282, 298 (D.R.I. 2010), aff'd, 631 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (even if catalyzed by government action, harm at the hands of third part......
- Garcia v. Peake, Civil No. 08-1701 (FAB).