St. Petersburg, Florida -- Richard Catalano, an attorney in St. Petersburg, loves his music, but he never thought it would get him into trouble.
He brought us back to the day in 2007 when he was stopped at a crosswalk on St. Pete's 22nd Avenue North.
"I was waiting for a woman to cross with her dogs," he said.
Once she made it across and he started driving again, he saw the police lights flashing behind him.
Confused, he pulled over.
"I rolled down the window and said, 'What did I do?' He says, 'Your radio is too loud,' and I said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" Catalano explained. He won't say which song he was listening to.
The officer wasn't kidding and cited him under the Florida statute 316.3045 that allows officers to ticket you if your car stereo is "plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the motor vehicle."
Reeling from the citation, the attorney did a little research on the statute.
"The moment I read it, I knew it stinks. I knew it was unconstitutional the moment I read it," he said.
A long legal process followed as he fought the citation and the statute itself. Not just because he wants to enjoy his music, "This is a matter of freedom, a matter of personal freedom."
On Wednesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeals agreed with Catalano and gave the opinion that the wording "plainly audible" is "too vague and too overbroad."
Read the decision (PDF)
The opinion also reads that the statute is "an unconstitutional suppression of protected speech." This is because the statute exempts noise for political or business purposes.
The opinion reads "there is no compelling governmental interest requiring disparate treatment of commercial or political speech versus amplified music."
Catalano expects the state to take the case to the Florida Supreme Court. He says he's ready to fight it in Tallahassee too.
"I've gotten hate mail, I've gotten hate emails. 'Grow up Catalano, do this, do that, what are you doing, don't you have concern for us out here,'" he said of the response he's received from some people, "I do have concern, that's why I'm doing it. People need to understand that a law like this is so vague, so ambiguous, puts way too much power on the cop on the beat to decide for himself who he will ticket and who he will not."
The St. Petersburg Police Department sent a memo out in June of last year regarding the noise issue after the "plainly audible" standard was put into question in the circuit court. The department asked enforcement of the plainly audible standard, or "Tone Down" rule be ceased until further notice.
Between Jan 30th of 2008 and June 5th, 2010 1,722 Tone Down citations were issued, according to St. Petersburg Police.
This does not mean other noise violations cannot be cited though, only ones that fall under the "plainly audible" rule.
Judy Ellis, also of St. Petersburg and founder of Noise Free Florida was not happy about the appeals court opinion, but agreed the definition of plainly audible is too vague.
She said, "In many ways this has been a set back, but in other ways this is going to help us move along to sort of a better mouse trap."
She's hoping the state will work toward a more workable law.
Ellis says noise pollution can be a very serious problem for some people, which is why she is fighting for their rights to peace and quiet.
"They get pain in their stomach, in their chest, in their head. I know people who faint," she said of some people's sensitivities to loud noises and loud cars. She calls them "boomers."
"It's just pure aggression," she said of people who turn up their car stereos.