Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Altered Law Leaves Students on Edge

Hoya Staff Writer

Published: Thursday, February 3, 2011

Updated: Monday, April 18, 2011 02:04

Noise 2.4.2011

FILE PHOTO: CHRISTINA BUCKLEY/THE HOYA

New D.C. protocol, effective since Tuesday, may lead to a rise in noise-related arrests by the Metropolitan Police Department.


A newly passed measure granting D.C. police greater authority in responding to rowdiness has spurred much of campus to action, triggering a strong student outcry and forcing administrators to preempt a possible rise in student arrests.

Scott Stirrett (SFS '13), chair of DC Students Speak, a group advocating for student interests in the District, has helped spearhead student opposition to the Disorderly Conduct Amendment Act of 2010, which increases punishments for unreasonably loud or disruptive noisemaking during nighttime hours.

"We feel that there are more pressing crime issues in D.C.," Stirrett said. "[The Metropolitan Police Department] shouldn't be wasting time arresting college students for potentially annoying people when there are much more serious things to be dealing with."

At press time, DC Students Speak had rounded up over 1,050 signatures for a petition against the law, which also gave rise to a related Facebook event that had attracted 1,787 users since it was created Thursday.

"We think the rapid, positive response we've gotten from students is indicative that students are really concerned about the policy," Stirrett said.

As students speak out against the amendment, MPD has said it will apply the new law fairly in the field.

"While MPD will continue to work with individuals and communities to appropriately balance the rights of each, the new law makes it clear that a person who makes an unreasonably loud noise between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. that is likely to annoy or disturb one or more other persons in their residences is violating the law and may be subject to arrest," MPD Chief Cathy Lanier said in a statement.

Despite the new amendment, the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program — an arm of the Department of Public Safety intended to reduce unruly student conduct off campus — does not plan to step up its presence in the neighborhoods surrounding campus, according to Rachel Pugh, director of media relations for the university.

Associate Director of DPS Joseph Smith said his officers will take a similar approach.

"While we are aware of the new legal restrictions, it should not significantly affect our patrol plans," Smith said.

Although university safety will not alter protocol, administrators have pledged to be proactive and have informed students that there may be new implications for their conduct off campus.

"Officers are being instructed to arrest on first contact; they will not necessarily provide a warning before making an arrest," Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson said in an email sent to students on Wednesday.

Unlike the many students alarmed by the amendment, Burleith resident Peter Metzger (COL '11) is not as concerned. Metzger and his housemates have been investigated for noise violations, once by SNAP and twice by MPD, for parties that Metzger says were within university regulations for registered parties — under 50 people, contained inside the house and in the backyard and ending by 2 a.m.

But because these guidelines do not apply to students living off campus, SNAP issued a noise violation to the group, leading to eight-week party ban. MPD gave out warnings on both occasions.

"The new policy doesn't change what I think we should be doing," Metzger said in an email. "Metro is actually the most chill enforcement of all. Any interaction that I've had with them has been relaxed. They seem to have a much higher standard for what is unacceptable noise."

Smith said that students should not have to dramatically alter their current habits to avoid penalties for rowdiness.

"I think it would be prudent for students to be cognizant of their noise levels — whether they are walking down the street or in their residences — from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Apart from that, it really shouldn't affect them," he said. "If we all strive to be thoughtful, responsible and considerate neighbors, that should be enough to meet the standards within the amendment."

Moving forward, the university plans on working more closely with MPD and students to cut back on rowdiness and potential student arrests.

"[We] will continue our many proactive steps to work with students and MPD to address issues before they become a major concern," university spokeswoman Julie Bataille said.

Even so, some neighbors have said that they will continue calling MPD instead of summoning a university resource like SNAP to handle nighttime disruptions.

Both the Burleith Citizens Association and the Citizens' Association of Georgetown urge their members to call MPD rather than SNAP to report noise complaints.

"We found SNAP to not be effective," CAG President Jennifer Altemus said.

Loud parties have traditionally been cause for student-neighbor tension in the area. The BCA's leadership has told residents, via emails on its Listserv, to call 911 immediately when there is a disturbance instead of talking to student neighbors first.

"It becomes unbearable," said Lenore Rubino, BCA president. "People are on their lawns, they're vomiting, they're urinating, just sitting on the curb passed out. Next door to these students there are elderly, there are babies, there are people getting up for the work the next day. It's not appropriate. Otherwise, there wouldn't be laws against it."

But as some students speak out against the amendment, others have tempered their response, saying they simply intend to lay low from now on.

"I feel like it's very, very scary for a college student to be in an atmosphere where there are going to be these kinds of consequences," West Georgetown resident James Barnao (COL '11) said. "I'm all for having a good time. But it's not worth jeopardizing my future."

Given the more severe ramifications for noisy off-campus residents, Barnao had some advice for underclassmen.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

2 comments

Anonymous
Fri Mar 18 2011 08:29
I don���t know which is more disturbing about this article; the fact D.C. and the���wish they coulda gone to GU��� crowd that now live in the area implemented this Gestapo tactic, or that only one GU response is found.

This ridiculous act has the potential to ruin student���s lives. I don���t accept resident���s assertions that they have a right to peace and quite. They moved into���not near���into, a major university campus. Perhaps they never attended college and don���t understand the social growth and maturing that is part of an undergraduate���s campus life and experience. Regardless of the reason the residents are so intolerant, I question the legality of this rule. Any way you view it, the rule is targeting Georgetown students. If that���s how the system is going to function, let���s implement a few new laws for the original residents���the students. Any breeder, er, person pushing a stroller wider than a SmartCar (and they all are) on a sidewalk or into a business establishment will be ticketed for driving on the sidewalk. Any Georgetown community resident on campus with their pooping animals on a leash (the dogs, not the trouser stains���I���ll get to those in a moment) will be arrested by Georgetown���s Finest and charged with terrorism���placing potentially dangerous, and certainly stinky, biological droppings all over campus. Regarding those other biological droppings(children); any breeders who bring their biologicals on campus, or allow them to run unfettered throughout the neighborhood without being physically restrained on a leash, or allow them to scream and yell will be subject to the same law and penalty as that imposed by the District on the original Georgetown residents (students). That seems fair, doesn���t it? This law was enacted because the sound of Georgetown students offended the locals; lets get serious about this law and start arresting everyone!

And students and alumni���where is the outrage!? You are engaged in doing any number and manner of good things for the District, from pro bono teaching of underprivileged kids, mentoring those who have had conflicts with the authorities, to providing advice and counseling on birth control and spread of STD���s; you should be outraged that the District would target you in such a manner. In times past and over matters less important, students would be marching and protesting this type of treatment. Oh well; I guess we���ve grown so comfortable that we���re willing to accept whatever government intrusion is thrown our way; or is it fear, just afraid to confront the aggressor?

MSB 02
Mon Feb 7 2011 13:08
I honestly wonder why anyone would bother attending this school anymore.

Ridiculously expensive and more so than most schools that are ranked above it. Crime is way higher than most schools ranked above it. An administration that does nothing for its students (our alumni donation rates ain't that great). Spoiled rotten elite neighbors that cry over everything (spoiler alert: when you live near a college there will be noise and if you can afford G-Town, you have plenty of other options). The best is the loser photographer who takes pictures of kids partying and posts them (this was a year ago or so). Spoiler alert 2, I know you are an effete DCer, but if that was my daughter or a friend's, I wouldn't use lawyers to resolve the issue.

And to top it off, a borderline retarded police department stalks students because they are too incompetent and cowardly to stop real crime. My first night senior year (lived next to Champs), there were a good dozen or more cops arresting one underage girl at the bar. Bravo.

Next time you are getting mugged, remember: when seconds matter, the cops will be there in minutes... unless you are holding a dixie cup.







log out