Noise Investigation Report Sample

Analytical Procedure The project hypothesises that the increase in call outs for the SMPD for noise complaints is due to the strained relationship between student and non-student residents, as they have differing principle of hours of activity, different economic status and different lifestyles in general. Traditional law enforcement conducted by the SMPD to curb late night parties had initially not seen any significant improvements. The SMPD became the subject of conflicting expectations from the single family neighbourhood residents and from the student residents. The single family neighbourhood residents felt that their concerns were not heard, while the students felt that they were not treated fairly.
In an effort to combat both the
noise complaints and the conflicting expectations of law enforcement, an internal work group was established to examine calls for service to the SMPD, the environmental conditions and police response to the call outs. The analysis included six components: identifying repeat complainants, determining locations and offenders that were subject to repeat calls for service, reviewing how calls were dispatched and responded to by the officers handling the complaints, investigating the geospatial relationship between noise sources & complainants, reviewing the city’s noise and party host ordinances, and looking closely at the actions taken by other cities to relieve noise complaints. The response plan saw the creation of the SARA internal work group in 2007, which was formed to investigate the noise related issues in the city and provide recommended solutions for the short, medium and long term. In 2008, the Achieving Community Together (ACT) campaign was formed, which was a body initially made up of representatives of the SMPD, Code Enforcement and the Legal Department, however as the scanning process progressed, it came to include criminal justice professors who initiated problem solving classes that encompassed community partnerships and cooperation between City and University staff, student and non-student residents, real estate management, property owners and the general media. The focus of the campaign was to shift the emphasis of noise complaints from being primarily controlled by law enforcement to community education and influence. In 2009, the ACT campaign expanded to include property owners in an effort to educate residents about community expectations and promote a positive, healthy living environment. Although the non-student residents bordering Sagewood listed the area as the number one location for noise related complaints, this was not the case according to the police data, which listed Sagewood as the seventh most visited location for service.
In an effort to understand the noise calls for service on Sagewood, all calls were analysed by the SMPD and included the geospatial relationship of the complainant and the site of the noise. The results of this analysis showed that in 2007, the SMPD received a total of 92 call outs for service relating to noise complaints. By location of the neighbourhood, it was determined that one residence, which was directly adjacent to the 800 block on Sagewood, was responsible for 23 of the complaints received. The police themselves initiated 33 complaints while on patrol, 17 complaints came from residents of Sagewood and the remainder of the complaints came from the other streets bordering Sagewood. The data also showed that the 800 Sagewood block was the source of the majority of the noise, with 55 complaints received, the 900 block responsible for 29 complaints received and the 1000 block responsible for 8 complaints. This data highlighted the major source of the noise pollution. The analysis highlighted several issues relating to police response to call outs for noise complaints. Underlying issues were identified such as a lack of coordination by stakeholders, an over reliance on law enforcement’s responsibility to resolve the
issue and a lack of educational or preventative strategies. The short term response plan presented to the City Council in 2008 by the SARA team proposed early interventions with owners and property owners for residences with repeat calls for service, changing the priority of noise calls to the SMPD from priority three to priority two, resulting in a quicker response, the establishment of consistent procedures and guidelines for police officers to check addresses for previous noise complaints, and increased patrols in the area.
Improved oversight of maintenance proposed coordinated pick up of trash, mowing of easements and general caretaking of the street, with status reports issued weekly to residents. This was an attempt to strengthen relationships with property owners and in general have a better oversight of the community. Medium term goals proposed the inclusion of the University to assist in dealing with off campus noise, building student and community partnerships, as well as improving police and resident interactions. This proposal saw police officers and students working together to clean up the neighbourhood, disposing of years of trash and improving the presentation of the neighbourhood. Long term goals proposed continued proactive, rather than reactive policing in the areas where noise problems were highest, seeking funding for physical funding for the area, and working with student and non-student residents to improve
relationships. Other things for Consideration
While the analysis from 2007 to 2010 shows reductions in call outs for noise complaints in the Sagewood area, and reports that the noisy parties are no longer a common occurrence, there are some competing explanations for this decrease. Firstly, in June 2009, the city of San Marcos permitted extended hours for the service of alcohol. Previously bars closed at midnight and were now permitted to open until 2am. The reduction in calls relating to loud parties could be partly because of the extended bar hours and partly due to problem solving efforts; the breakdown of the exact causes in the reduction is undetermined. Secondly, large scale parties have been displaced, moving outside the city limits and into Hays County jurisdiction where host responsibility and noise ordinances to not apply. Displacement of crime is likely if the offense type can easily be moved to another place (Wilcox & Gallagher, 2013). Further analysis of noise into this area could indicate increases in the Hays County jurisdiction which would show that the response plan was responsible for displacing the problem, rather than solving it. The problem of displacement is a consideration, however in the proposed Queensland area for intervention, this would not be a significant problem due to there not being any areas close by where regulations were not in place regarding noise and party hosts. While the results of the intervention show a reduction in calls for service to the Sagewood area, the interventions strength has been the collaborative partnerships and strengthened relationships between all stakeholders. The move to community awareness and reduced reliance on law enforcement has strengthened bonds between all parties. The intervention would need to be ongoing, as the student population is transient, which would require an ongoing education process for potential residents to also receive the same education regarding the community expectations.