I wrote to the County Commissioners- they are the ones who wrote this law and passed it. I talked to two Animal Control Officers and they were great and very helpful but they said that the way the law is written their hands are tied. If a citizen submits a request for civil penalty they have to act on it. And I asked them what I could do- they suggested a surveillance system, they said other people have defended themselves successfully with one, and they said that in order for them to ignore her complaints, I would have to be charged criminally (that happens after the 4th complaint) and go to court and be found innocent, then they could refuse to act on any more of her complaints. Crazy, huh?JimS said:
Need Surveillance system to prove my dogs don't bark
- Thread starter 2sleepy
- Start date
Is this the rules?
http://www.washoecounty.us/animal/noise.html
I would keep my own log of barking with details of how long, what caused the barking if known, etc to show that it is limited. Also log when you are home as you can't log barking when not home. If they don't match times in the log of the complainer then that discredits the complainer. If these are the rules then some limited barking is allowed. I would also arrange for some time the dogs stay somewhere else. Maybe some weekends or a week here or there. When this goes to trial if you have someone testify they had the dogs at the time she says they were barking that seems like a very solid defense and shows that they are just making stuff up or they improperly assume it is your dogs when barks are heard.
I would also request the complaint information (it is noted at the bottom of the page that "All reports are subject to public records request". Frequently this is called a "freedom of information act" request. You will then have more information about the complaint that may help you in your defense.
http://www.washoecounty.us/animal/noise.html
I would keep my own log of barking with details of how long, what caused the barking if known, etc to show that it is limited. Also log when you are home as you can't log barking when not home. If they don't match times in the log of the complainer then that discredits the complainer. If these are the rules then some limited barking is allowed. I would also arrange for some time the dogs stay somewhere else. Maybe some weekends or a week here or there. When this goes to trial if you have someone testify they had the dogs at the time she says they were barking that seems like a very solid defense and shows that they are just making stuff up or they improperly assume it is your dogs when barks are heard.
I would also request the complaint information (it is noted at the bottom of the page that "All reports are subject to public records request". Frequently this is called a "freedom of information act" request. You will then have more information about the complaint that may help you in your defense.
wkearney99
Senior Member
I'd refuse to pay any such 'fines' based on how you've described the law.
Gov't bureaucrats are often best motivated to change things when it becomes too much of a hassle, or starts making them look bad. Try both.
But first up, make sure your dogs would make great appearances on a TV show. Then get the local new out there to get them to cover the insanity of that law. This is all predicated, of course, on your dogs not actually being a pain in the ass for your neighbors...
Gov't bureaucrats are often best motivated to change things when it becomes too much of a hassle, or starts making them look bad. Try both.
But first up, make sure your dogs would make great appearances on a TV show. Then get the local new out there to get them to cover the insanity of that law. This is all predicated, of course, on your dogs not actually being a pain in the ass for your neighbors...
yes, that's the law. I already got all the complaints she filed, that's how I knew it was her. Two Animal Control Officers told me that barking is only a nuisance if there are 30 barks in a 10 minute period (which has never happened with these dogs) when I did a records request and asked for that in writing they all tried to walk it back and say that was the policy of the old manager but now the policy is just "loud and frequent"..they don't want to define loud and frequent anymore. Here is a link to the law that was passed by the County Commission, it goes into more detail than the one you linked http://www.washoecounty.us/clerks/files/Ordinances/1460.pdfJimS said:
wkearney99
Senior Member
From the looks of it there's nothing imposed until you either 'admit' (as per the link's language) or 'deny' and have a hearing. This is not much different than many other forms of similar ordinances. And any time there's a 'hearing' that doesn't go the defendant's way there's always appeals. Sure, there's typically costs to file for such an appeal, but do it, every time. Their costs to provide for the appeals may eventually 'encourage' them to stop bugging you. The 'system' doesn't want to work any more than anyone else.
Is the rest of the animal control code online anywhere? Because section 7 mentions 'found in violation' and it'd be interesting to read what that constitutes (sections WCC 55.010-800).
I'd start looking into the ordinances requiring maintenance of property regarding the adjacent unmaintained acreage. I'm sure it varies by zoning, so know what applies for it. This as a means to ratchet up activity on the part of the county. Make them start working more and they'll start finding ways to avoid it. This is the 'squeaky wheel' scenario. Basically, with most laws there's really no way to avoid getting 'something' wrong. If the system isn't going to stop being a problem for you, then start becoming a 'problem' for the system (work-wise, that is).
Is the rest of the animal control code online anywhere? Because section 7 mentions 'found in violation' and it'd be interesting to read what that constitutes (sections WCC 55.010-800).
I'd start looking into the ordinances requiring maintenance of property regarding the adjacent unmaintained acreage. I'm sure it varies by zoning, so know what applies for it. This as a means to ratchet up activity on the part of the county. Make them start working more and they'll start finding ways to avoid it. This is the 'squeaky wheel' scenario. Basically, with most laws there's really no way to avoid getting 'something' wrong. If the system isn't going to stop being a problem for you, then start becoming a 'problem' for the system (work-wise, that is).
Here's a link to the complete county code http://www.washoecounty.us/clerks/files/pdfs/county_code/CompleteCode.pdf The thing that makes this weird is that the complainant files a written statement and a log and Animal Control issues a civil penalty based on that and nothing else. They don't come out to verify the violation, or talk to other neighbors. If you deny the violation you have a hearing, I had one and lost. The appeal process is through the district court. It requires filing a writ of manadmus and the payment of filing fees. Civil infractions other than Animal matters have an appeal process within the county and you are not required to file in court. If you win- you win the right to have another hearing on the same matter and there is no provision for the return of the penalty you paid. As far as her unmaintained property, I already looked into that and it is Reno Fire that has jurisdiction over it and they told me they don't have the manpower to act on complaints regarding fire hazards on private property. I'm going to be a problem for the County because I am directly attacking their crappy law. I will wait until after Christmas to see if I get a response from the County Commission and if I don't I will do what I have to do to get someone to pay attention to it.wkearney99 said:
wkearney99
Senior Member
According to the ordinance they don't issue a civil penalty. They issue a notice of a civil penalty. It's up to you to admit or deny that, either paying or requesting a hearing. Now that you've lost one, get representation for the next one. Don't come back to the batting box without a DH.
That they don't come out to verify the situation is why I asked about the rest of the code. If the rest of the code is specific in it's requirements (or even if it's not) then they'd have to prove that an appropriate person did an actual 'finding', as per the ordinance. This is one of those situations where if they didn't do their diligence then you can't be found guilty. You still have to waste the time to attend a hearing. But at that point any decent counsel would call them on the lack of finding and request a dismissal (not a not-guilty) based on lack of evidence. These finer points matter, quite a lot, as you move up the appeals process.
As for appeals that doesn't sound significantly different than other jurisdictions. What you 'pay' is usually quite a lot less than what the gov't incurs as their 'cost' to hear the appeal. Do this often enough and they start to seek ways to settle things. Yes, you're out of pocket on this, such is the price of justice.
As for fire and not having resources, go up the chain to the state. Rattle cages, eventually they get the hint and fulfill their obligations to the citizens, not just shirk it off with excuses. This is one area where you'd likely have decent potential to be a nuisance in filing suits...
I'm not sure how crappy the law itself is, based on my limited reading of it. In fact, moving things out of being criminal penalties and over to civil is probably a better deal for folks cited as actually violating it.
But this does come back around to the fundamental question of whether your dogs really are being reasonably quiet or not. If they're not then you don't have much of a leg to stand on here.
So your original inquiry here regarding video surveillance still applies. Just DO NOT give anything to the gov't, or even mention that you have it, until you've fully reviewed ALL OF IT and are confident that nothing in it would reflect poorly on your side of the argument. When you start to involve things as 'evidence' there are some pretty particular rules associated with it. All it'd take is the other side finding out about it and poring over it to undermine your position. So don't go pulling out that proverbial smoking gun until you're SURE it ain't pointed back at you!
No, I'm not a lawyer, but my wife's one, my Dad was one and I probably know FAR too many other lawyers.
That they don't come out to verify the situation is why I asked about the rest of the code. If the rest of the code is specific in it's requirements (or even if it's not) then they'd have to prove that an appropriate person did an actual 'finding', as per the ordinance. This is one of those situations where if they didn't do their diligence then you can't be found guilty. You still have to waste the time to attend a hearing. But at that point any decent counsel would call them on the lack of finding and request a dismissal (not a not-guilty) based on lack of evidence. These finer points matter, quite a lot, as you move up the appeals process.
As for appeals that doesn't sound significantly different than other jurisdictions. What you 'pay' is usually quite a lot less than what the gov't incurs as their 'cost' to hear the appeal. Do this often enough and they start to seek ways to settle things. Yes, you're out of pocket on this, such is the price of justice.
As for fire and not having resources, go up the chain to the state. Rattle cages, eventually they get the hint and fulfill their obligations to the citizens, not just shirk it off with excuses. This is one area where you'd likely have decent potential to be a nuisance in filing suits...
I'm not sure how crappy the law itself is, based on my limited reading of it. In fact, moving things out of being criminal penalties and over to civil is probably a better deal for folks cited as actually violating it.
But this does come back around to the fundamental question of whether your dogs really are being reasonably quiet or not. If they're not then you don't have much of a leg to stand on here.
So your original inquiry here regarding video surveillance still applies. Just DO NOT give anything to the gov't, or even mention that you have it, until you've fully reviewed ALL OF IT and are confident that nothing in it would reflect poorly on your side of the argument. When you start to involve things as 'evidence' there are some pretty particular rules associated with it. All it'd take is the other side finding out about it and poring over it to undermine your position. So don't go pulling out that proverbial smoking gun until you're SURE it ain't pointed back at you!
No, I'm not a lawyer, but my wife's one, my Dad was one and I probably know FAR too many other lawyers.
Thanks for all the information. If my dog's weren't reasonably quiet I wouldn't have a surveillance camera running 24/7, that would we stupid. In reviewing the video, they bark 'maybe' 3 times a day usually when they are playing (wrestling) and they emit maybe 2-4 barks at a time. But this woman is trying to file a 3rd civil penalty stating that my dogs were 'fighting' each other and that she could see that my parrot was stressed. My parrot is in the house and she's 30 years old, if a dog stresses her out she bites the dog sheesh.. I feel really violated that this woman is now peering inside my house and reporting on what's going on there.
My thoughts exactly. There are likely rules against looking in your windows and even more likely rules against taking pictures/movies through the windows. Might be worth looking into those rules. Maybe file a complaint against her for invasion of privacy or stalking or some such. Even better if you have proof she has pictures. Has she submitted any photos with her complaints?
Most city TV stations have a segment about public interest stuff such as government waste, bad rules, poor behavior by public officials, etc. Perhaps you could try to get some time on the air to tell your story and put the officials in the position of defending how they handle this - Only problem I see is you may have little control on how they spin the story.
A fine that you don't get back even if found not guilty is clearly wrong. If this is truly guilty until proven innocent maybe you could contact the ACLU (much as I hate most of what they do...) or the states attorney pointing out that the law, at least as enforced, has serious issues. It would really help if you could get some others on your side as a larger group will get more attention than just one person.
Most city TV stations have a segment about public interest stuff such as government waste, bad rules, poor behavior by public officials, etc. Perhaps you could try to get some time on the air to tell your story and put the officials in the position of defending how they handle this - Only problem I see is you may have little control on how they spin the story.
A fine that you don't get back even if found not guilty is clearly wrong. If this is truly guilty until proven innocent maybe you could contact the ACLU (much as I hate most of what they do...) or the states attorney pointing out that the law, at least as enforced, has serious issues. It would really help if you could get some others on your side as a larger group will get more attention than just one person.
wkearney99
Senior Member
Sounds like filing a restraining order is a VERY good idea. For one it sets the precedent that her behavior has gone beyond reasonable, which becomes a factor as things continue. Here you can apply 'the system' in your favor. It helps to be open and expressive when filing one, don't downplay anything out of 'pride' or embarrassment. This isn't saying your should lie, exaggerate or excessively hype anything, just don't minimize anything because of how you think it might make you look. The goal here is to turn the tables against the crazy lady. This becomes one piece in a larger puzzle.
I did some research on Nevada laws. The 'peeping tom' law requires that the perpetrator be on your property. The other two are harassment and stalking. So far she has not introduced any photos of anything, but she did file a complaint which stated that my dogs were 'fighting' inside my house and that it stressed my bird. The dogs weren't fighting, they wrestling but that's what she claims. I think in order to pursue any action against her I need to have one of two things happen. 1) have her show the hearing officer photos or videos that include the inside of my house -or- have her present a log at a hearing and I will be able to refute it with the video surveillance system.
She tried, Animal Control said that they wouldn't issue the complaint because it didn't have to do with dogs barking- just "fighting" as she calls it, and a bird making noise doesn't fall under the ordinance. I love this surveillance system, my dogs are in the bedroom asleep and I just recorded coyotes howling for about 10 minutes straight followed by about 15 neighborhood dogs barking =)Work2Play said: