Reacting to a sequence of canine assaults and issues late inside the Counties, each Stevens County and Spokane County in Washington State (and nationwide) have adopted new laws for header with doubtlessly harmful and cruel canines. Since I'm a citizen of Stevens County, I'll communicate to the brand new Title 20 ordinance adopted in December 2007 by Stevens County.
Stevens County's new set of harmful canine legal guidelines is designed to place the accountability on the owner and ne'er simply the animal. At this date, Stevens County doesn't have any elect animal direction authority aside from the Stevens County Sheriff. Under its new Title 20 ordinance, the Stevens County Sheriff's Office now has extra authority to search out {that a} canine is harmful or doubtlessly harmful and impose corrective actions to guard the general public. Owners are given extra alternative to attraction the Stevens County Sheriff's designation to the courts.
By definition below the recently adopted Title 20, a "possibly dangerous" canine is one which has a recognized propensity, tendency, or disposition to trigger an motiveless assault or to trigger harm or in any other case jeopardise the protection of people or home animals. A "dangerous dog" has evoked motiveless extreme harm to a human being, or has killed a home animal whereas off the owner or keeper's property, or has beforehand been discovered "possibly dangerous" and sharply assaults once more or endangers security. Both the "possibly dangerous" canine and "dangerous dog" designations below the Stevens County, Washington Title 20, carry related penalties for homeowners and their canine(s). Stevens County has obligatory extra restrictive measures below the "possibly dangerous" canine designation than below present Washington State legislation.
If a canine is discovered to be "dangerous" or "possibly dangerous", the owner should register the canines inside 14 days of the County Sheriff's dedication, and the registration will entirely be accepted if the owner agrees to placement of an computation out chip inserted inside the animal, fee of the primary registration defrayment and an annual registration defrayment, and to maintain the canine confined inside or in a correct enclosure. Proper enclosure is distinct below Title 20 as a dog house that accommodates an confined prime in addition to sides. If the canine is allowed exterior the enclosure, it have to be muzzled and restrained with a 3-foot chain with a 300 lb. tensile power. An owner can not promote or switch possession, custody or residence of the canine with out notifying the County Sheriff and notifying the brand new owner of the canine's report with an acknowledgment signed by the brand new owner of the phrases and circumstances of his upkeep whereas in Stevens County, Washington. In excessive circumstances, presumably the County Sheriff because the animal direction officer has the authority to resolve if the canine have to be destroyed. While I can comprehend the adoption of Title 20 and its ordinances and the "dangerous dog" designation and the aim and advantage behind its adoption, the "possibly dangerous dog" designation seems to be much not possible to control and this specific designation is ripe for abuse.
I'm comparatively sure many people have delicate a tough neighbor a time or two. For regardless motive, sure people appear to have nothing higher to do than complain about their neighbors' pets, the damaged down vehicle, hobbies, or the rest which will nettle them at any given time. In truth for some folk, they appear to make fretful their passion. In rural Stevens County, Washington and different rural areas which are transferring quickly towards improvement, there'll in the to the last degree multiplication be conflicts between nation neighbors with differing views on a rural life-style. The Title 20 "possibly dangerous" canine designation offers these folk with only one extra avenue for battle and extra ammo for provokment. An further hazard for residents is that the whole hearing to course of as used by means of the Stevens County Sheriff's Office, below each designations, seems to be au fon blemished and unconstitutional.
I've articulate to a number of residents inside the County the place provokment by a pain neighbor, by means of Title 20, seems to have occurred to their detriment. The new Stevens County, Washington Title 20 "possibly dangerous dog" designation appears to make it notably simple for a pain neighbor to provok one other neighbor. Since the current adoption of Title 20 in December 2007, I've found that a number of residents have been troubled to defend towards false and/or airheaded allegations about their companion canines. One citizen discovered herself the goal of a pain allegation by an issue neighbor and the Stevens County Sheriff regarding her "possibly dangerous" canines, after her fretful neighbor's canine pulled her present canine by means of her soulal fence and killed it. Apparently a criticism was lodged by the pain neighbor towards the deceased present canine as a preventative strike. How many Stevens County residents have simply confiscate their proper to possession of a companion canine ascribable pain allegations they power not afford to defend and unconstitutional actions being taken by Stevens County public officers? All a pain neighbor power now must do is declare {that a} canine barked at them, and the canine's owner could also be hit with a planned "possibly dangerous" canine designation, charges, an embarrassing public hearing to and media protection, and different extreme restrictions on their canine by the Stevens County Sheriff.
I suppose the perfect a part of the brand new Title 20 ordinance is the attraction course of since a canine is already planned by the Stevens County Sheriff to both be "dangerous" or "possibly dangerous" previous to a hearing to. However, many poor folk don't have the assets to lawfully struggle once more towards an preliminary and probably airheaded dedication by the Stevens County Sheriff untimely of a public hearing to. Attorney charges, at a fee of $200 per hour to defend towards any such pain motion, could also be inside the vary of $2,000 - $40,000+.
There are different potential issues in finishing up the brand new Stevens County Title 20 ordinances. The issues I reference under, in addition to others I've not highlighted on this clause, have already emerged in different states and Washington State counties -- King and Spokane County, Washington, e.g.. The courts in King County and Spokane County have late dominated upon the moot harmful canine ordinances and procedures. In King County, e.g., inside the current harmful canine case of Mansour v. King County tried by animal legislation legal professional Adam Karp, the place Mansour was discovered to have been denied due course of, the Washington State Court of Appeals dominated: "Due process au fon requires the chance to be detected at a important time and in a important manner". . . "An adequate standard of proof is a mandatory safeguard." " The standard of proof instructs the fact finder "regarding the sheepskin of confidence our society thinks he ought to have inside the correctness of the factual conclusions" . . .. While the Stevens County Sheriff continues to sit as the investigation official, the judge and jury in these possibly dangerous and dangerous dog cases, how much confidence can the public place in any factual conclusion made by the Sheriff's Office?
In Spokane County in a "doubtlessly harmful canine" case, Judge Austin of the Spokane County Superior Court subordinate that Spokane's "harmful canine" ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies pet owners the right of due process, and that as a matter of law the body procedures used in the City of Spokane regarding "harmful canine" determinations and appeals from those rulings violate citizens' due process rights. In their current system, dogs labeled as "harmful" by the city and its contractor, SpokAnimal, are deemed to be just that unless the owner can prove otherwise -- flying in the face of the notion of presumed innocence. The judge subordinate that the City desecrated (in that case) Patty Schoendorf's rights by taking her property -- her dogs --and intended to destroy them after a hearing where she was not allowed to cross-examine or incriminate witnesses involved in the dog's impoundment. She also wasn't given access to documents in the City's "harmful canine" file, and the chance to rebut those allegations -- another denial of due process secured by the Constitution. The judge not only ordered Spokanimal to like a sho release the dogs, he also ordered the City of Spokane to pay legal bills for a team of attorneys - Robert Caruso, Richard Lee and Cheryl Mitchell, animal law attorneys.
While I would like to say that I trust the Sheriff's Animal Control Officers to ensure that there is a real danger to the public, the truth (and in this the problem) is that in Stevens County there is presently no separation of powers from the onset of the first investigation, the Sheriff's determination of "doubtlessly harmful canine", and finally to the Sheriff's ruling following a public hearing that a dog is "doubtlessly harmful". The Stevens County Animal Control Authority (the Stevens County Sheriff's Office) sits as the investigator, judge and jury. Where is our secured system of checks and balances in that process? The following is generally the procedure used under the Stevens County "doubtlessly harmful" dog designation:
(1) When a complainant calls to make a report, he makes it to the Stevens County
Sheriff's Office, the elect animal control authority in Stevens County;
(2) A Stevens County Sheriff's Officer may be sent to the scene to presumably thoroughly investigate the dog incident and take an incident report. A thorough and complete investigation may or may not occur, and as a matter of fact the dog's owner may not even be allowed to tell their side of the story to the Officer or see the complaint, the results of the investigation, and may not even be advised of the name of the complainant by the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's goal in these cases appears to be to hold back all in dispute documents and evidence entirely from the accused pet owner until a day or two before the hearing, stating that the procedure is still in the "investigational stage"-- similar to a criminal proceeding. The pet owner has no time to prepare a defense;
(3) After the Sheriff takes an incident report from the complainant, the owner of the alleged offensive dog(s) is then promptly advised by a Stevens County Sheriff's Officer that he/she must submit to photographing of his/her dog(s), anterior to the dog owner receiving any rather a notice or citation from the Stevens County Animal Control Authority (the Sheriff). Notice of the alleged incident may simply be a Sheriff's Officer arriving on the doorsill or at your gate, and advising you that he is required to take photographs of your dogs as "a part of the hearing to course of". At this point, you may not even have notice of any hearing. The photographing process may or may not involve a Stevens County Sheriff's Officer demanding entrance onto your personal estate or requesting entrance into your home, for the declared purpose of photographing your dog(s).
Citizens, delight be aware that a dog is elect as "personal estate" in the State of Washington and other states. The Washington State Constitution and U.S. Constitution protect individuals once morest unlawful searches and seizures concerning your soulal property.
The simple act of entering onto personal estate for the purpose of taking photographs of soulal property, without the direct or implicit consent of the landholder and without a search warrant, is unlawful. Generally speaking, warrants are signed by Judges or commissioners in criminal matters. At this point, this procedure is still considered a civil or body matter. There appears to be something inherently wrong with this process from the outset. (The rule that I have soulally obligatory is not to let anyone onto my property without my express invitation (or a warrant). My directive to this effect seems to work for most people.)
Of course, there are "exigent circumstances" exceptions under the law to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances generally arise when a law enforcement officer may have reasonable ground to believe that there is an immediate need to protect his life, the life of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not impelled by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched. None of these exigent circumstances is likely to exist in a Title 20 dangerous or possibly dangerous dog investigation which would allow a public official to trespass for the purpose of photographing dogs.
4) The owner of the alleged offensive dog will then receive a certified letter or soulal service by the Stevens County Sheriff', notifying the dog's owner that their dog has already been deemed a "doubtlessly harmful" dog or "harmful canine" under their new Title 20 ordinance. The owner's dog is deemed "responsible" before tried, based generally only upon a report made by a complainant. That complainant could be made by anyone with "axe to grind". The dog is declared guilty in advance of a public hearing before the Stevens County Sheriff's Department. The investigation agency (the Stevens County Sheriff's Office) then astonishingly plays the role of the judge and jury at this public hearing where the dog's owner is required to prove that his/her dog is not dangerous, or possibly dangerous. Please be aware that you (as the accused) are not required to prove anything. The burden of proof falls upon your accusers to make their case, and not you. Public testimonial will be taken by the Sheriff, and you will receive a ensuant notice of his final ruling. This entire process usurps constitutional protections afforded each citizen under Washington State and U.S. Constitutions. Any hearing in a "doubtlessly harmful canine" or "harmful canine" case should be set before an impartial judge or hearing examiner. The Sheriff cannot rule on issues as a matter of law.
It is my understanding and impression that any public hearing conducted by a public official(s) in Washington State must follow the law and procedures under either the Washington State Open Meetings Act or Administrative Procedures Act. Since a dangerous dog hearing does not really meet the criteria under the Open Meetings Act, the hearing process should follow the Washington State Administrative Procedures Act. If you are not acquainted with this Act, familiarise yourself with it and your rights under this Act. This law can be found in the public library under 34.05 RCW (Revised Code of Washington). Insist that any dangerous dog hearing you may be a party to follow with these lawful procedures.
Citizens, delight take heed! The Stevens County Title 20 dangerous dog ordinances are dangerous to you in that they can possibly intensify into a criminal matter if you do not follow with the severe restrictions obligatory on your dog, or if the dog is once more the subject of a complaint. You must contest the letter/notice that you receive from the Stevens County, Washington Sheriff's Office and promptly return it via Certified US Mail or Delivery Confirmation. Also enclose your own letter stating you contest your dog's planned designation by the Sheriff, and that you demand a lawful hearing before a bona fide hearing examiner conducted under the Washington State Administrative Procedures Act. If you do not sign and return the Notice from the County Sheriff, the "doubtlessly harmful canine" designation is automatically applied by the Sheriff to your dog through your inaction.
Once you have been deemed to own a "doubtlessly harmful" dog or "harmful" dog, all regulations, restrictions, fees and other penalties under the new ordinances apply to you and your dog. The Title 20 regulations, restrictions, fees and other penalties have severe consequences for both you and your dog. If you do not follow with these new regulations following the final determination of your "doubtlessly harmful canine" or "harmful canine", then you possibly may be issued a criminal citation. Potentially you may be thrust into the position of defensive yourself as a criminal. Moreover, your homeowner's insurance may be off or be prohibitively dearly-won in the future, and you may be forced to carry an dearly-won bond if you intend to keep your dog in the County.
The Title 20 dangerous dog ordinances can be dangerous to your health and welfare and your dog's health and welfare, particularly if you do not exercise your constitutional rights. I would extremely recommend hiring an attorney, if you can afford one. Hire soul who specializes in animal law, e.g. one of the attorneys mentioned in that clause. If you cannot afford one and are low income, call CLEAR at their toll free number in Washington State to see if you can qualify free charge legal assistance. Other possible sources of legal assistance are the Gonzaga Law School, or the Washington State Bar Association who may have a referral to a unpaid (free) attorney.
Please exercise your civil and constitutional rights and familiarise yourselves with this new set of laws under Stevens County, Washington - Title 20. Please do not allow your valuable rights to be damaged upon by public officials or you may lose them. Do not allow yourself to become their victim.
Last but not to the last degree, delight recognize and be aware that you do not have to allow anyone onto your personal estate, in most cases, without a warrant. It surprises me that many citizens do not know this. If there is any doubt in your mind, delight respectfully ask the soul requesting license to enter onto your personal estate "do you've a warrant?" Express to them that without a signed warrant, that soul does not have your consent to enter onto your personal estate. This rule generally applies to most everyone, public officials included, unless they have an implicit right to enter such as a meter reader. With respect to your personal estate rights, generally speaking, what applies to any other private citizen who wants entrance to your property applies to public officials as well. Post your Gates and property with "No Trespassing" and "Beware of Dog" signs to protect yourself -- just about every 50 feet. Also fence your property with at to the last degree a 5-6 foot fence if you own a dog, for extra protection. Electrify your fence, if necessary, if you are in a rural area. Fence chargers, including star fence chargers, can be purchased for $30 and up and are quite effective as a deterrent to entrance and exit by animals.
I recognize that this clause may not be "politically appropriate" on this local weather as this can be a delicate situation proper now. I'm conscious that it could anger those that are really in danger or who've been victims of genuinely harmful canines. I agree that genuinely harmful canines are a risk to public security. However, I submit that whereas the intent behind Title 20 and different harmful canine legal guidelines is sweet and I agree with its intent, the method to use and regulate below these legal guidelines has been poorly thought out and applied ordinarily by Stevens County, Washington and different counties round Washington State (and our nation) in attempting to guard the general public security. In attempting to guard the general public well being and security, particular soul constitutional rights, due course of, and privateness can't be ignored. If you don't train your rights, you'll forfeit these helpful rights assured to you by the U.S. and Washington State constitutions. You extraly could also be pressured to relinquish your wanted one home pet, euthanize it, transfer out of the County, or reside with extreme restrictions on the animal and really costly insurance coverage.
0 Comments