My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-05-12
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
1999
>
1999-05-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2009 2:43:10 PM
Creation date
12/21/2009 2:41:47 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
252
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DRAFTING AND ENFORCING ANIMAL CONTROL <br /> ORDINANCES <br /> The regulation of pets and other animals has not remained unchallenged over the years. In <br /> fact, challenges to animal regulations have increased over the years with a number of <br /> different constitutional challenges made against a wide variety of regulations. <br /> A. The purpose of animal control ordinance and regulations — are they rationally <br /> related? <br /> Challenges to animal ordinances are often based upon the rational relationship of the <br /> ordinance to the police power or the arbitrary and capricious adoption of ordinances. <br /> A city must have some reasonable basis for adopting an ordinance.' Animal <br /> regulations have been found to be rationally related if adopted to protect citizens from <br /> the danger of uncontrolled or inherently dangerous animals, prevent nuisances or <br /> maintain clean and healthy living environments in addition to many other reasons.' <br /> When drafting an ordinance to control animals within its community, a city may <br /> address a problem as it sees best. A city is entitled to "a reasonable opportunity to <br /> experiment with solutions to a problem. ' <br /> B. Drafting the animal control ordinance — is it too vague? <br /> An ordinance will be void for vagueness if it is not definite enough for a party to <br /> know from the statute what behavior should be avoided.' This is measured by <br /> whether a reasonable person would or would not understand that his conduct is <br /> prohibited by the ordinance." Therefore, the ordinance drafted by the City should <br /> provide enough guidance for ajudge to apply the law and for an attorney to defend <br /> against it. <br /> In many cases the pet owner recognizes the fact that his /her pet falls into the regulated <br /> category of animals. And, the burden falls on the animal owner or challenging party to <br /> demonstrate that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague." Because animal control <br /> ordinances generally impose criminal sanctions on animal owners for their violation, <br /> courts generally carefully scrutinize the ordinances.'' Nevertheless, the ordinances are <br /> generally upheld because simple dictionary definitions or common use of the term wiil <br /> often resolve any ambiguity presented by the ordinance." Thus, many owners will <br /> not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance for vagueness <br /> because, by the plain- meaning, the ordinance clearly applies to them. <br /> However, such owners may still challenge the ordinance as unconstitutionally vague <br /> when it is facially vague as written and overbroad." A facial attack on the vagueness <br /> of a statute requires a showing that the ordinance is vague in all of its applications not <br /> just in some hypothetical situation: ° Because an owner could bring such a claim, a <br /> municipality should try to be clear in what it demands from specific owners. For <br /> example, if the city enacts an ordinance requiring an animal to be kept on a leash, the <br /> city should be clear as to what animals this applies to and when. <br /> G. VCL0917tYAIV/n fRAS M1NOWf2OOMANf. ULCO 1170 5 9 Cw,nW Leave of Mmenu Cam 0 19W <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.