Bookmark and ShareCrime

Music man told officers he had a ‘permit’

Friday, April 9th, 2010 | 6:53 am

GD Star Rating

The stereo equipment police seized from Darcy D'Archangelo. (Photo contributed)

By Joe Fries

When police investigated a noise complaint against Darcy D’Archangelo that eventually led to his arrest and the seizure of a huge cache of his stereo equipment from his rental home on Lone Pine Drive Sunday, D’Archangelo said he had a permit to play his music and showed it to police.

One problem: It was actually his most recent noise violation ticket.

That detail and others are contained in the supporting documentation that RCMP Cpl. Andrew Waddell used to obtain the search warrant to seize Darcy D’Archangelo’s stereo gear from his rental home on Lone Pine Drive. Police are recommending a charge of criminal mischief against D’Archangelo and he is set to appear in court sometime in June.

The warrant was issued by a justice of the peace at a call centre in Burnaby at 6:45 p.m. on Sunday, after a prior application was turned down for unspecified reasons. The warrant gave cops a roughly two-hour window to make the seizure of “electronic components, stereophonic equipment, and related items capable of producing amplified music, sound and or noise, that obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.”

As background for the warrant, Waddell wrote that he overheard a dispatch to the home around 9:50 a.m. on Sunday. Afterwards, he met with RCMP Const. Apollonia De Jong and bylaw officer Larry Mushta, who went to the home to find out what happened. De Jong told her superior she heard “excessively loud music” of the “grunge/heavy metal genre with a male vocalist.”

“The volume was so great, that Cst. De Jong had to wait until the music, sound and or noise, reduced between songs, or musical tracks, before knocking at the door would have been heard by an occupant of the residence.”

Waddell went on to say that when the noise did go down, it went down all at once, which led De Jong to believe it was not a band playing, but rather a stereo.

After a chat, D’Archangelo told the officers he had a permit to play his music.

“The ‘permit,’” Waddell wrote, “was D’Archangelo’s copy of a municipal violation ticket information for a bylaw noise violation previously issued to D’Archangelo.”

D’Archangelo was then handed a fresh ticket and asked by the officer to keep the music down, a request he did not acknowledge.

After he heard the officers’ stories, Waddell then compiled a history of complaints attached to the residence, and learned police had visited there seven other times in a two-week stretch, and had written four bylaw tickets.

The complaints had come “at times of late night, or early morning. All times at which persons would normally be resting.”

Waddell stated that the warrant would provide evidence that D’Archangelo had the means to interfere with others people’s use and enjoyment of their property, which fits the criminal description of mischief. Waddell added that seizing the items would allow them to be analyzed to corroborate the complaints, and doing so would also “immediately prevent” D’Archangelo from bothering others.

The information to obtain the warrant contained a chronology of the visits to 712 Lone Pine Drive:

March 21 – 5:23 a.m.

  • police receive a complaint about loud music playing for the past few hours
  • RCMP officer visits and issues a ticket

March 22 – 3:28 p.m.

  • an officer hears “very loud music” from the residence
  • D’Archangelo turns down the volume before answering door, then is issued a ticket

March 28 – 11:37 p.m.

  • a representative of the property owner tells police the music is “too loud”
  • a cop speaks to D’Archangelo, who agrees to turn it down

March 30 – 1:09 a.m.

  • police receive a complaint about loud music
  • officer attends and issues a ticket

March 31 – 8:25 a.m.

  • D’Archangelo is issued another ticket

April 2 – 11:20 p.m.

  • police receive a compliant from a neighbour
  • officer shows up and hears “extremely loud music”
  • D’Archangelo turns down the music when asked to do so

April 4 – 4:43 am

  • police receive a complaint
  • an officer attends, but hears no noise, and knocks on the door go unanswered

April 4 – 9:50 a.m.

  • police receive final complaint
  • D’Archangelo tries to pass off a ticket as a music permit, and is instead issued a new ticket

Music man told officers he had a 'permit' 5.054

Bookmark and Share

4 Responses to “Music man told officers he had a ‘permit’”

  1. Rednik says:
    GD Star Rating

    Ok, this guys sounds a bit thick.

    But the response, and quick action by authorities suggest someone of influence lives nearby. ie Cop, city council, city staff, or that guy that always has his little dog on his lap while driving his Subaru…oh and wearing a ‘Tilly hat’ while blocking the passing lane.


  2. Phil says:
    GD Star Rating

    You know at some point you have to just question this guys brain power… well that and hearing… potentially his viewing and reading capacity too.

    To see a violation notice as a permit well thats just rich :D. But to think to get away with it, wow. The fact that he can’t get headphones or for that matter listen to the music at normal levels makes me wonder if his hearing is impacted somehow…

    All i can say is show some respect to the person(s) next to you…

  3. James says:
    GD Star Rating

    Don’t buy a house 10′ away from the next one if you don’t want to see, smell, and hear everything that your neighbors are doing.

    Cases like this set a precedent for future issues with similar circumstances. Does this mean every car with a loud sound system should be confiscated? What about those dogs in my neighbors backyard that never shut up, can we have those appropriated by the state?

    I hope everyone that supports the actions of the police in this case loses something directly or indirectly as a result of the way this case was handled.

    This man obviously invested a large sum of money in his stereo equipment, and if you are so quick to jump on the ’stripping assets’ boat, then you deserve to lose too.

  4. glenda says:
    GD Star Rating

    I don’t think the average Tom, Dick or Jane have to worry about the cops seizing their their stero or barking dog. Look at the number of times the cops were at this place to deal with the noise problem…about eight times…before they applied for a search warrant to sieze the equipment. Any normal person would have turned down the noise after the first caution from the cops and had this “rocket scientist” done the same, he would still have his stero equipment. No this case does not set any precedent for the average person…just for those that continue to disrespect their neighbours and fail to use common sense.

    Please continue discussion on the forum: link

Tags: , ,