RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Legal Types: What Are my Chances of winning???

9K views 52 replies 29 participants last post by  waterdog711 
#1 · (Edited)
I know I shouldn't post this but I'm going to any way...(Never been accused of being too bright) This may get long........

Animal Enforcement showed up today. (again) It seems that I have a neighbor that does not approve of me airing my dogs, across the road from their house. I have been warned (in writing) for letting my dog run "At Large" and "Defecating On Public Property".

On the surface it would appear that I am at fault. However, Said neighbor does NOT own the property in question!!! Neither do I. BUT I do have written permission from the owner to Train, exercise my dogs and, use it as I see fit. As well as my guests.

The officer was going to issue me another warning but I insisted he write me up. So since he saw my dog cross the road without a leash he is citing me for "not having my dog contained" He is only issuing a warning for defecating. (Dog got stage fright and couldn't perform) He does however have a very nice picture of my dog taking a dump under a tree.

The neighbor will not identify themselves to me or Animal Enforcement. (Passive Aggressive Generation)

I'm going to get my day in court: The question I think depends on the definition of "Restraint" Never does the ordinance say "leash" or "Contained" But must be restrained.

My argument is I am that restraint... Nowhere does it say "Physical Restraint"

So what are my chances and what Free :) advice would offer??

I'm going to paste the ordinance as well as a link to the whole ordinance.

1.04 Defecation Upon Public or Private Property

A. It shall be unlawful for any owner of an animal to cause, suffer or allow such
animal to soil, defile, defecate on or commit any nuisance on any street, sidewalk,
passageway or other public property or on any private property without the prior
express permission of the owner of such property

A. The owner of an animal must immediately remove any feces deposited by the
owner’s animal upon any public or private property other than that of the owner
and dispose of same in a proper and sanitary manner.


Owner to Keep Animal Under Restraint

A. The owner of an animal shall keep his or her animal under restraint at all times
and shall not permit such animal to run at large in the Township.

A. On property of the owner, an animal must be so controlled or restrained as to
prevent the animal from attacking or threatening any person legitimately coming
onto the property or being on any sidewalk, street or lot adjacent to the property.

http://www.millcreektownship.com/Portals/0/pdf/ordinances/ord_00_15.pdf

Thank you, Randy

P.S. I feel I don't need a leash and don't have to pick up the poop...What say you??
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Seems to me if the property is privately owned and you have the permission of the owner, you'd be okay. Be sure and take that document or owner w/ you to court.
If I tell someone they can "air" their dogs on my property (on or off leash), I can't see how the other neighbors could take issue with it. Anne
 
#4 ·
I guess I'm confused. If you have written permission from the property owner, what is the issue exactly?
 
#6 ·
I guess I'm confused. If you have written permission from the property owner, what is the issue exactly?
That's what the Judge will determine...

Is the fine fixed or at the Judges discretion? I ask because in most cases like yours the verdict is guilty and a salty judge is happy to teach a lesson.
Fixed. But get gets larger with each infraction..

So HNTFSH you a lawyer??? I don't think I need to have my dog leashed or pick up poop every time the pup poops. On my own property. If the owner of the property doesn't care why should anybody else...

Just asking not bring a wise guy..

Randy
 
#7 ·
I'm an atty, but can't say I've specialized in this kind of thing before have spent most of my career in front of judges. Some observations:

1. The 2nd half of the orindance kind of defines restraint or restrained as keeping the dog from threatening or attacking anyone. The dog crossing the road is neither and no one was threatened or attacked.

2. Is the land across the street privately owned and that's who you have permission from? If so, that is not public property, that's private property, and therefore, not subject to the language of the ordinance. If the conduct the neighbor is complaining about happened on that private property, there is no violation of anything.

3. Consider bringing the landowner you have permission and/or another friendly neighbor to testify you aren't some bum just letting dogs bother neighbors for the hell of it. Judges can be persuaded by more seeing that more voters support you than oppose you.

4. Consider bringing a few of your dogs' title certificates or ribbons to show you aren't just some guy who has watched a few episodes of Dog Whisperer.

5. Boulder, Colorado has an ordinance that allows people to run their dogs in the public parks when they have proven they have reasonable control of their dogs. Its called "sight and sound" and dogs aren't required to be on a leash as long as they are within sight and can be called with a reasonable expectation they will respond. You might download that ordinance to use as an example of how restraint should be defined in your town if it isn't otherwise explained.

6. Finally, I know its not your first impulse, but consider making peace with and trying to win over the animal control officer. Those guys are just doing a job and don't want to be out there for bogus calls anymore than anyone else. Invite him to see you putting your dogs through their paces and that a dog crossing the road on his own isn't the norm, but instead the exception. Done correctly, you might win them over to the point that the next time the phone rings to complain about you, they simply shut down the caller and don't even come out.

I had a similar situation with my condo association and I took the dogs up to the office to introduce them and do a little simple obedience and hand signal demonstration. After that, a couple of haters called to complain and the office staff said something like "Oh, those are Tom's dogs, aren't they wonderful?" End of complaint...

Good luck.
 
#8 · (Edited)
I know I shouldn't post this but I'm going to any way...(Never been accused of being too bright) This may get long........

Animal Enforcement showed up today. (again) It seems that I have a neighbor that does not approve of me airing my dogs, across the road from their house. I have been warned (in writing) for letting my dog run "At Large" and "Defecating On Public Property".

On the surface it would appear that I am at fault. However, Said neighbor does NOT own the property in question!!! Neither do I. BUT I do have written permission from the owner to Train, exercise my dogs and, use it as I see fit. As well as my guests.

The officer was going to issue me another warning but I insisted he write me up. So since he saw my dog cross the road without a leash he is citing me for "not having my dog contained" He is only issuing a warning for defecating. (Dog got stage fright and couldn't perform) He does however have a very nice picture of my dog taking a dump under a tree.

The neighbor will not identify themselves to me or Animal Enforcement. (Passive Aggressive Generation)

I'm going to get my day in court: The question I think depends on the definition of "Restraint" Never does the ordinance say "leash" or "Contained" But must be restrained.

My argument is I am that restraint... Nowhere does it say "Physical Restraint"

So what are my chances and what Free :) advice would offer??

I'm going to paste the ordinance as well as a link to the whole ordinance.

1.04 Defecation Upon Public or Private Property

A. It shall be unlawful for any owner of an animal to cause, suffer or allow such
animal to soil, defile, defecate on or commit any nuisance on any street, sidewalk,
passageway or other public property or on any private property without the prior
express permission of the owner of such property

A. The owner of an animal must immediately remove any feces deposited by the
owner’s animal upon any public or private property other than that of the owner
and dispose of same in a proper and sanitary manner.


Owner to Keep Animal Under Restraint

A. The owner of an animal shall keep his or her animal under restraint at all times
and shall not permit such animal to run at large in the Township.

A. On property of the owner, an animal must be so controlled or restrained as to
prevent the animal from attacking or threatening any person legitimately coming
onto the property or being on any sidewalk, street or lot adjacent to the property.

http://www.millcreektownship.com/Portals/0/pdf/ordinances/ord_00_15.pdf

Thank you, Randy

P.S. I feel I don't need a leash and don't have to pick up the poop...What say you??
I think you are absolutely required to pick up poop under that ordinance unless it is on your property. The ordinance seems to make this clear when it says "must immediately remove any feces deposited by the owner's animal upon any public or private property other than that of the owner and dispose of same in a proper and sanitary manner". If it's not your property then you have to pick it up. And particularly where you are using someone else's property, why wouldn't you pick it up?

You have a good technical argument that "restraint" in that ordinance doesn't mean only a leash, particularly when a lot of our dogs with a collar on are under much better control and restraint than a lot of "regular dogs" on an actual leash Good luck getting a municipal judge to side with you against an officer that he sees all the time in his court.

I will have to say that may be the vaguest ordinance I have seen on that. What does "legitimately" on the property mean - is that what the person coming onto the property says or what the owner says? And what in the world does it mean to be "threatened" - and is that an objective, reasonable person standard or is it what that person says they felt?

Waterdog 711 gave you some very good suggestions for different ways to handle this, and i would seriously consider his suggestion to make nice with the animal control officer I don't see where you are accomplishing a whole lot by going to court here because you are not going to find out who the complaining party is.

I would be careful about involving the landowner as well. If the neighbor starts wearing him out, he can very easily make his phone stop ringing by revoking your permission to use his property. Food for thought.
 
#9 ·
Waterdog: Thank you. That's the kind of info I was looking for.

The property is privately owned and permission is from the owner. In writing on his business letterhead and signed. My wife and I are both named as having permission, as well as our guests.

The Officer and I get along well. We both want the same thing: His phone to stop ringing, the emails to stop, and his boss of his azzzz. And me out off his life. I insisted he write me a citation. So I could go to court and put this to rest... We do however disagree on "restraint" "containment" and "leashes"

I also like the Boulder idea.

Thank you for your time and effort. It is appreciated, Randy
 
#10 ·
Rookie:
And particularly where you are using someone else's property, why wouldn't you pick it up?
It is a wild area pond, cattails, weeds etc.etc. The owner doesn't mow it I do. I guess you couldn't know that. My first post was long enough without ALL the details... Do pick up dog poop in the field?? I don't. Yard yes. Also nobody lives on this property. No structures nothing wild.

I'm banking on this Claus to cover the poop. "private property without the prior
express permission of the owner of such property"

Thanks, Randy
 
#31 ·
I'm banking on this Claus to cover the poop. "private property without the prior
express permission of the owner of such property"

Thanks, Randy
Go back and read that ordinance carefully. The express permission clause is in the first part that you quoted and means that the pooping is not unlawful if you have permission. Regardless, the second part seems to require you to pick it up whether you have permission or not. It pretty clearly says remove any feces on any public or private property other than that of the owner.
 
#11 ·
Glad to help. Two more observations:

The ordinance regarding poop's intent is clearly intended to make pet owners clean up poop off public property and other people's private property that isn't yours (for instance, picking up as you walk down a sidewalk through a neighborhood full of houses). This isn't that kind of case if you have permission from the owner for the purpose of training dogs. The only person who could or should be able to make a complaint is your owner, which he hasn't and probably doesn't care if its a field and not his manicured front yard. Take several photos to show this is not another citizen's front yard. In addition, there is no other neighbor who could make the same complaint on another's property because they would be tresspassing before the poop could ever affect them.

Finally, if the animal control guy doesn't witness any offending behavior with his own eyes, he can't testify to what anyone tells him because it is inadmissible hearsay without an eyewitness. Case closed. The best way to either end this or find out who your nosy neighbor is to accept a citation that requires the complaining witness to appear or the ticket is dismissed. If you go once or twice and the witness never shows, the court will let the animal control officer know they don't have to keep issuing tickets for someone who won't show up and see it through.

Go get 'em!!

Tom McGrath
 
#12 ·
I really don't see the point of all this. You asked to be ticketed for exactly WHAT reason? Nonsensical to me. You aren't in violation of a darn thing, and this will just waste the court's time. It also will do nothing as far as the neighbors are concerned. They will continue to gripe. You have permission, so take the letter with you. The poop shouldn't even be on the agenda, and you should ask for it to be dismissed. that's going no where unless you admit to it.. i wouldn't, BTW.
 
#14 ·
Susan, In a round about way I agree with you... It is a waste of the courts time. But it is also a waste of enforcement's time..

They (complainer) continue to call he (enforcement) continues spend time with me. Warnings or otherwise.

I'm either in violation or I'm not....The way I see it one of two things are going happen.

1) I capitulate and the calls stop. If I'm not in violation why should I???

2) They are told that I'm not in violation. Please stop calling.

One way or the other the local PD is not going keep dealing with this...I should bend because someone has nothing better to do than worry about a third party's vacant land?

The reason I asked to be ticked was to bring it to an end...Enforcement's position is they will continue to warn, ask, etc.etc. until I comply.

This officer truly was uncomfortable having to "ask" me again.

I think between your's and Waterdogs advice I'll schedule a sit down with the officer. If we can come to an agreement on "restraint" maybe I don't waste the court's time.

Thank you for advise and opinion. That's what I wanted.

Randy,

P.S. I sure miss living is BFE
 
#13 ·
FYI

RookieTrainer's dog $hits everywhere we go and I have never seen him clean up after his dog:D

Lonnie Spann
 
#16 ·
I had similar problems with my HOA. An anonymous neighbor making complaints. They identified my dog being out unsupervised but could only specify the month that it happened and not the day, much less the time. (My dog is never out by himself.) They claimed they had pictures, but could not even tell me what my dog looked like and refused to let me see them. Finally after a series of letters I told them to get a mediator from the court system (An option provided in the small print of the HO agreement). They declined and dropped the matter completely. I haven't had a complaint from the neighbor again either.
 
#17 ·
Rnd -

You run the risk of the Ct. Saying, "This is a waste of time. Whose bright idea was this." To which the ACO will say, "His." At that point the judge will say something like, "Bring the guilty party in and we'll give him some justice."

Never , ever be seen as the party wasting the court's time ... ever!

Too late but you should have simply made your case to the ACO with all the documents you have and let it go. It's not your job to save the ACO time. If you made your case, let him deal with the neighbors. That's his job. Court can be a crapshoot and you run very real risks of a bad outcome.
 
#18 ·
Never ask for a ticket, Keep your dog on leash crossing road. Don't look for trouble. You have permission to be on property, your in the clear on this point. Try to avoid court system and law enforcement at all times.Dog owners are another target of groups like PETA. Try not to give groups, or people of their ilk any reason to be looking our way.
 
#19 ·
Randy
I just need to toss my $.02 in. You might not have done anything wrong by a legal standpoint but in my humble opinion not cleaning up after your dog craps on a neighbor's property is in poor taste and gives all dog owners a "black eye". I have a training group I work with and everyone knows that simple rule. Don
 
#24 ·
I agree with some of the others. I would not have gone out of my way and asked for a ticket. You could be in for a big surprise one you had not bargained for IMO! Good luck to you. Let us know.
 
#25 ·
As to the question of scooping the poop, you don't say how big the field is: regular city lot? five acres? 20 ac? I certainly don't pick up the poop on the 140 ac where I often run my dog, nor on the 10 acre pasture where we go when not on the 140 ac. There is raccoon, coyote, cow, etc. poop out there so seems silly to be picking up my dog's little contribution.

Good luck on the (I assume) JP case. Be sure and let us know how it goes.
 
#26 ·
The leash law in the suburb I used to live in is similar to yours, however they did a good job of defining the expectations and terms. The significant difference is that they referenced both e-collars and an AKC Canine Good Citizen certification as leash equivalents. In both cases, dogs were allowed off leash with the caveat that they be called into heel position when anyone approached within 100'. The pooper scooper section also made an exception for rural undeveloped areas. It may be worth showing this ordinance to your AC guy aid in the discussion of 'restraint'.

http://www.ci.lakeville.mn.us/departments/departmentspdf/Leashlaw.pdf
 
#27 ·
Sonia

Sounds like a very enlightened city council and community. Wish there were more .
 
#28 ·
This is a situation where an anonymous caller/whiner is causing unnecessary grief. A simple sit down would alleviate most if not all of the problems. You mow the place, not the owner. If you lose access the logical assumption would be the land would be mowed sporadically if at all. Which is worse, dogs frolicking in the grass where only trespassers step in poo or an overgrown, unkept vacant lot where vermin are allowed to proliferate. Regardless of your legal standing, the outcome of shutting off your use of the property will be an even bigger thorn in the anonymous callers side.
 
#32 ·
I must admit that this thread has been very amusing. Makes me wonder if I should put up a sign at the farm stating "Let your dog poop on this property but BE SURE TO LEAVE IT. It makes good fertilizer"!:D

I will further say that I have NEVER seen a handler walk out 100 yards during a HT and pick up poop left by his dog on the retrieve of a bird, regardless whether the land was public or private.
 
#34 ·
It sure would be interesting to find a letter printed out threating you and your dog that s****s where ever it feels like. The leo's would definitely be more interested in that than poop. They most likely would have a prime suspect of who wrote that letter, might even pay them a visit.:evil:
 
#35 ·
I think the poop part has been thoroughly analyzed. As to restraint, there is language to effect "and allow the dog to run at large." Might look at it as a two part test- on leash restrained- ok. If not restrained by leash the animal cannot be allowed to run at large. Certainly you were not allowing that. So unless the dog was off leash AND being allowed to run at large- not guilty.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top