Orders on a dangerous dog, Stevens County, Washington – Title 12 – Straight Talk – Know your rights!

In response to a series of attacks on dogs and challenges in recent years in the county, district and county Stevens Spokane, Washington (and across the country) have adopted new rules to combat potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. As I Stevens County citizen, I will speak with the new order of Title 20, adopted in December 2007, Stevens County.

A new set of Stevens County dangerous dogs laws designed for a host of accountability, not just animals. On this day in Stephens County, there is no designated authority for the control of animals, except for Sheriff Stephens County. According to the new decision of 20 titles, Stephens County Sheriff's Office has a mandate to find out that the dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous, and introduce corrective actions to protect the public. Owners provided additional opportunity to challenge Stevens County sheriff's appointment to the courts.

By definition, in the recently adopted the title 20, "potentially dangerous" dog – a dog that has a propensity, tendency or predisposition to, to cause nepravakavany attack or cause damage or otherwise endanger the safety of people or pets. "Dangerous dog" caused suras & # 39; serious injury to a person or kill a pet, is owned by the owner or keeper or had previously been found "potentially dangerous" and then aggressively attack or endanger the safety. Mean "potentially dangerous" and Stephens counties "dangerous dogs", Washington 20 bear similar consequences for owners and their dogs. Stevens County has introduced more restrictive measures, entitled "potentially dangerous" dogs, than under the current Washington State law.

If the dog is found to be "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous", the owner must register the dog within 14 days after the County Sheriff, and registration will be accepted only if the owner agrees with the placement of identification microchip inserted into an animal, payment of the first registration fee and the annual registration fee, as well as the content of the dogs indoors or in an appropriate place. Proper enclosure defined in the header 20 as a nursery, which contains nested top and sides. If the dog allowed outside the cage, it must be restrained zadubena and 3-foot chain with a tensile strength of 300 pounds. The owner can not sell or transfer ownership or custody of the dogs living without reporting the county sheriff and the notification of the new owner of the dog entry confirmation signed by the new owner of the conditions of his detention during his stay Stevens County, Washington. In extreme cases, it is assumed, the county sheriff as an officer for the control of animal has the power to decide whether or not to destroy the dog needs. While I understand the adoption of title 20 and its regulations, as well as the appointment of a "dangerous dog", as well as the goals and achievements of its adoption, the designation of "potentially dangerous dog" regulated virtually impossible, and this particular designation is ripe for abuse.

I'm relatively sure that many of us have experienced difficult neighbor once or twice. For whatever reason, some people have nothing better to do than complain about their neighbors & # 39; pets, broken car, a hobby or anything else that can irritate them at any time. In fact, for some people they seem to be complaining about their hobby. In the rural area of ​​Stevens, Washington, and other rural areas, which are rapidly moving towards development between neighboring countries will always be conflicts with different views on the rural way of life. Title 20 "potentially dangerous" dog gives these people another avenue for conflict and further ammunition for the prosecution. Additional danger for citizens is that the whole process of the hearing, which is used by Stevens County Sheriff's office, under both designations, is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.

I talked with several residents of the district where the persecution by the bad neighbor, title 20, leaned on them harm. The new name of Stevens County, Washington, known as "potentially dangerous dog", it seems very easy trying to pursue another neighbor. With the recent adoption of the header 20 in December 2007, I found that some people are fighting against the false and / or frivolous claims about their dog companions. One turned out to be a citizen of the & # 39; object uncomfortable accusations troubled neighbor and Sheriff Stephens County in terms of its "potentially dangerous" dogs after her neighbor complained dog show dog pulled through its own fence and killed her. Apparently, a neighbor sent a complaint on the dog's dead, as a preventive strike. How Stephens County citizens simply deprived of the ownership of a companion dog because of unfair accusations that they could not afford to defend, and unconstitutional actions taken by government officials Stevens County? Now all that can make a neighbor – a statement that the dog barked at them, and the dog's owner can be applied to a predetermined dogs designation, extortion, unpleasant public hearings and media coverage; other severe restrictions on the dog from Stephens County Sheriff.

I believe that the best part of the new order of the order of 20 – this appeal process, as Stevens County sheriff has previously determined that the dog should be "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous" before the hearing. However, many poor people do not have the resources to legally resist the initial and possibly frivolous determination County Sheriff Stevens before the public hearing. The size of the lawyers in the amount of $ 200 per hour to protect against this kind of unpleasant actions can range from 2000 to $ 40,000 +.

There are other potential problems with the execution of new orders of Stevens County, referred to in the neighborhood 20. The problems, which I refer to below, as well as others that I have not covered in this article already occurred in other states and counties of Washington State – eg in King County and the Spokane, Washington. The courts in King County and the Spokane County recently ruled on the controversial regulations and procedures on dangerous dogs. For example, in the county of King in a recent dangerous reality Mansour vs. King County, which judged the lawyer for the law of the animals, Adam Karp, where Mansour was denied due process, the Court of Appeals of Washington stated: requires the ability to be heard at a meaningful time and intelligently " … "adequate standard of proof – a mandatory guarantee." "proven standard instructs factor", which relates to the credibility of our society, he believes that he must have the correct factual findings. ". While Stevens County sheriff continues to hold the office of the investigator, judge and jury in these potentially hazardous and dangerous cases with dogs, how much confidence can voice the society in any actual conclusions Sheriff's Department?

In the district of Spokane in the case of "potentially dangerous dog" Judge Austin High Court District Spokane found that the decision about the "dangerous dog" on Spokene with & # 39 was unconstitutional because it deprives the pet owners in a proper manner, and that, as a rule , legislation, administrative procedures, which are used in Spokane, the definition of "dangerous dog" and appeals of these decisions violate citizens & # 39; proper rights to the process. In their current dog's system, designated the city as "dangerous" and its contractor, SpokAnimal, considered only the fact that, if the owner can not prove otherwise – fly in the face of alleged innocence. The judge ruled that the city violated (in this case) right Patti Shchendorf, taking her belongings – her dogs – and set out to destroy them after the hearing if she was not allowed to cross examine or interfere with a witness involved in the dog with the arrest. She was also not given access to the documents in the archives of the city "dangerous dogs", and the opportunity to refute these allegations – yet another denial of due process, guaranteed by the Constitution. The judge not only ordered the immediate release of Spokanimalu dogs, but also ordered the City of Spokane to pay legal bills for the team of lawyers – Robert Caruso, Richard Lee and Cheryl Mitchell, advocates animal rights.

Although I would like to say that I trust the employees to control the animals sheriff, to ensure that there is a real danger to society, however (and this is a problem) is that in Stephens County is currently no separation of powers. from the beginning of the initial investigation, the definition of sheriff "potentially dangerous dog" and, finally, the decision of the sheriff after the public hearing that the dog is "potentially dangerous." Control Authority animals Stevens County (County Sheriff's Office Stevens) with & # 39 is the investigator, judge and jury. Where our guaranteed system of checks and balances in the process? Further, as a rule, is used procedure that is used in Stephens County "potentially dangerous" dog:

(1) If a complainant is required to make the report, he shall submit an application to the county Stevens
Sheriff's office designed the body to fight with animals in Stevens County;

(2) The officer Stephens County Sheriff can be sent to the scene, presumably, to thoroughly investigate the incident of the dog and adopt a protocol on the incident. Deep and full investigation may or may not happen, and in fact, a dog owner may not even allow the officer to tell his side of the story or watch a complaint, investigation results, or may not even Sheriff Office reported on behalf of the complainant. The aim of the sheriff in these cases with the & # 39 is to contain all relevant documents and evidence from the accused the pet owner to a day or two before the hearing, stating that the procedure is still in the "investigative stage" – similar to the criminal case. The owner of a pet do not have time to prepare a defense;

(3) After the sheriff has taken in the complainant's message about the incident, the alleged owner of the offending dog shall immediately notify the officer Stephens County Sheriff, he / she must submit to photograph his / her dog (s) before the dog owner will get that a message or a link from the body control animals Stevens County (sheriff). Message about the alleged incident may be a sheriff's officer, who arrives on the doorstep or in your gates, and tells you that he is obliged to take pictures of your dogs as "part of the hearing." At this point you can not even notice any hearing. photographing process may or may not include the Stevens County Sheriff's officer, which requires entry into your private property or requires entry into your home, for this purpose your dog's photograph.

Citizens, please remember that the dog is referred to as "private property" in the state of Washington and other states. The Constitution of the State of Washington and the United States Constitution protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures related to your personal property.

The simple act of entering a private property for the purpose of photographing personal property without the express, or express consent of the landlord, and without a search warrant from the & # 39 is illegal. Generally speaking, the orders signed by judges or commissioners on criminal cases. At the moment, the procedure is still considered to be a civil or administrative matter. It seems that in this process it is not right to begin with. (Rule, which I personally imposed, -. Not to let anyone into my property without my explicit invitation (or orders) May a directive on this matter seems to be effective for most people.)

Of course, at the request of the warrant exist "exceptional circumstances" exception. Usually, there are circumstances when a law enforcement officer may have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an urgent need to protect your life, other people's lives, their property, or the lives of others, the search is not motivated by the intention to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis to link emergencies area or place where you need to look. None of these extraordinary circumstances, probably does not exist in the investigation of dangerous or potentially dangerous headers specified in 20, which would allow public officials a crime to shoot a person for photographing dogs.

4) The owner of the alleged violator will receive a certified dog list or a personal service from Stephens County Sheriff, telling the dog owner that their dog is considered "potentially dangerous" dogs, or "dangerous dog" in their new order 20. The owner of the dog was considered "guilty" before than he was tried, relying solely on the statement of the complainant. Such complainant can make anyone who "sharpen the ax." Dog found guilty before the start of a public hearing in Stevens County Sheriff's Department. Investigation Agency (Stevens County Sheriff) followed by the country acts as judge and jury on this public hearing, where a dog owner has to prove that his dog is not dangerous or potentially dangerous. Please note that you (as a defendant), nothing to prove. Provably burden rests on your prosecutors to express their business, not on you. Public testimony will be the sheriff, and you will receive the following notification of the final decision. This whole process has usurped the constitutional protection granted to every citizen in the state of Washington and the US Constitution. Any hearing of the case "potentially dangerous dog" or "dangerous dog" must be brought before an impartial judge or court staff. Sheriff can not take a decision on the law.

As far as I know and believe that any public hearings conducted by a public official in Washington State must comply with the law and the procedure provided for either by the Law on public meetings of the State of Washington, or the Administrative Procedure Act. Since the dangerous dog hearing does not actually meet the criteria of the Law on public meetings, hearings process must comply with the Law on Administrative Procedures of Washington. If you are not familiar with this law, are familiar with it and your rights under the Act. This law can be found in the public library under Article 34.05 RCW (Revised Code of Washington). Insist that any dangerous dog that you hear may become party to these legal procedures.

Citizens, please carefully! Orders dogs rules in Stephens County 20 dangerous to you so that they can develop into a criminal case, if you do not meet stringent restrictions on your dog or if the dog again with the & # 39 is the subject of the complaint. You have to challenge the list / notice you get from the sheriff's office Stevens County, Washington, and immediately return it by US certified mail or delivery confirmation. Please also include your own letter, stating that you are struggling with your predetermined sheriff dog, and you need a legal hearing before a bona fide officer of the hearing, held in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, Washington. If you do not sign and return a notice from the County Sheriff, Sheriff symbol "dog potentially dangerous" is automatically applied to your dog through your inaction.

Once you find that you own a "potentially dangerous" dogs, or "dangerous" dog, all rules, restrictions, fees and other penalties, in accordance with the new regulations apply to you and your dog. Rules, restrictions, fees and other penalties header 20 have serious consequences for you and for your dog. If you fail to comply with these new regulations, after the final determination of your "dog potentially dangerous" or "dangerous dog", it is possible that you may be issued a criminal citation. Potentially you could have protection as a criminal. Moreover, the homeowner insurance in the future may be withdrawn or would be too expensive, and you may be forced to carry an expensive bond, if you are going to keep the dog in the neighborhood.

Orders on dangerous dogs header 20 can be hazardous to your health and well-being, as well as for the health and well-being of your dog, especially if you do not use their constitutional rights. I highly recommend hiring a lawyer, if you can afford it. Hire someone who specializes in animal law, such as one of the lawyers mentioned in this article. Калі вы не можаце сабе дазволіць і маеце нізкі прыбытак, патэлефануйце CLEAR па іх бясплатным нумары ў штаце Вашынгтон, каб даведацца, ці можаце вы атрымаць права на бясплатную юрыдычную дапамогу. Іншыя магчымыя крыніцы юрыдычнай дапамогі – юрыдычная школа Gonzaga або Вашынгтонская юрыдычная асацыяцыя штата Вашынгтон, якія могуць звярнуцца да прафесійнага (бясплатнага) адваката.

Калі ласка, скарыстайцеся сваімі грамадзянскімі і канстытуцыйнымі правамі і азнаёмцеся з гэтым новым законам законаў Каўнці Стывенс, штат Вашынгтон – Загаловак 20. Калі ласка, не дазваляйце дзяржаўным службовым асобам зачыняць вашыя каштоўныя правы, інакш вы можаце іх страціць. Не дазваляйце сабе стаць іх ахвярай.

І апошняе, але не менш важнае, калі ласка, прызнайце і ўлічыце, што вы не павінны пускаць нікога ў вашу прыватную ўласнасць, у большасці выпадкаў без ордэра. Мяне здзіўляе, што многія грамадзяне гэтага не ведаюць. Калі ў вас ёсць якія-небудзь сумневы, калі ласка, пачціва спытайце чалавека, які просіць дазволу на ўезд у вашу прыватную ўласнасць: "Ці ёсць у вас ордэр?" Выкажыце ім, што без падпісанага ордэра гэты чалавек не мае вашага згоды ўвайсці ў вашу прыватную ўласнасць. Гэта правіла, як правіла, распаўсюджваецца на большасць усіх, уключаючы дзяржаўных службовых асоб, калі яны не маюць пэўнага права ўвайсці, напрыклад, зчитальнік лічыльнікаў. Што тычыцца вашых правоў прыватнай уласнасці, тое, што тычыцца любога іншага прыватнага грамадзяніна, які хоча ўваходзіць у вашу ўласнасць, датычыцца і дзяржаўных служачых. Размясціце вароты і маёмасць з дапамогай знакаў "Без парушэнняў" і "Сцеражыцеся сабакі", каб абараніць сябе – прыблізна кожныя 50 футаў. Акрамя таго, агароджвайце ўласнасць не менш за 5-6 футаў, калі вы маеце сабаку для дадатковай абароны. Пры неабходнасці электрызуйце агароджу, калі вы знаходзіцеся ў сельскай мясцовасці. Зарадныя прылады для плота, уключаючы зарадныя прылады для сонечнага плота, можна набыць за 30 долараў і вышэй і з'яўляюцца дастаткова эфектыўнымі сродкамі стрымлівання ўваходу і выхаду жывёл.

Я ўсведамляю, што гэты артыкул не можа быць "палітычна правільным" у гэтым клімаце, бо гэта зараз далікатнае пытанне. Я ведаю, што гэта можа раззлаваць тых, хто па-сапраўднаму рызыкуе альбо стаў ахвярай сапраўды небяспечных сабак. Я згодны, што сапраўды небяспечныя сабакі ўяўляюць пагрозу грамадскай бяспецы. Аднак я сцвярджаю, што ў той час як намеры за загалоўкам 20 і іншымі небяспечнымі законамі аб сабаках добрыя, і я згодны з яго намерам, працэс прымянення і рэгулявання ў адпаведнасці з гэтымі законамі быў дрэнна прадуманы і рэалізаваны ўвогуле акругай Стывенс, штат Вашынгтон і іншымі акругі вакол штата Вашынгтон (і наша нацыя) у спробах абараніць грамадскую бяспеку. У спробах абараніць грамадскае здароўе і бяспеку нельга ігнараваць асобныя канстытуцыйныя правы, належны працэс і прыватнае жыццё. Калі вы не будзеце ажыццяўляць свае правы, вы пазбавіцеся тых каштоўных правоў, гарантаваных вам канстытуцыямі ЗША і Вашынгтона. Вы таксама можаце быць вымушаныя адмовіцца ад любімага хатняга гадаванца, эўтаназіраваць яго, пераязджаць з акругі ці жыць з жорсткімі абмежаваннямі на жывёлу і вельмі дарагім страхаваннем.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *