There's a great adage in the news business that the story of a dog biting man isn't news but the man biting the dog? That's a different story. How about lawyer biting dog?
In a fashion that's the treat scheduled for Tuesday, December 11th from the Ohio Supreme Court -- and best of all we can all follow along at home thanks to the First Amendment and an enlightened court that opens up oral arguments of cases to webcasting.
Here's the gist: Rebecca Kim of Columbus got popped with a barking dog complaint from her neighbor, Joseph Berardi, who testified he just couldn't take the 90 minutes of Kim's dog "Lucky" going non-stop despite Berardi being inside his own home with the air conditioning on. Kim was found guilty and, not missing a beat, moved up to the 10th District Ohio Court of Appeals to argue the state law was vague because it doesn't define exactly HOW long or HOW loud barking needs to be to drive the neighbors nuts.
The appeals court didn't buy Kim's argument but as luck would have it the 11th District DID find the law in Warren (State v Ferraiolo) too vague in a related case, hence the Ohio Supreme Court having to decide just how loud a barking dog needs to be in order to call the heat. Now our highest-ranking judges will figure out when dog-barking becomes "unreasonably loud or disturbing” or “detrimental to the life” of one resident of a neighborhood when it may be completely inoffensive to another.
Lawyers being lawyers Columbus is arguing in their legal filings that the vagueness of the law isn't a problem so long as the court finds that "no reasonable construction that would meet constitutional requirements," or to paraphrase the only way to find barking dog laws unconstitutional is to find the barking dogs are protected by the constitution.
They point to court decisions in several other states that have struck down noise ordinances that are more specific than the Columbus ordinance at issue here, and they urge the Court to affirm the 11th District’s reasoning in Ferraiolo that the subjective standards set forth in the Warren and Columbus ordinances are unconstitutionally vague.
You have a front-row seat to all of this; all you need is a fast connection, a computer with Real Audio and this link to access all the fun. Best of all will be watching folks seriously argue the measurement of when dogs cross the line.
Who says government is boring?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If a dog barks for more than 10 or 15 minutes and you can hear it in your house - it should be considered a nuisance! Anyone who lets their dog bark endlessly is also a nuisance. If I can hear it in my house and it goes on for more than a few minutes its a problem. It's not the decible that should be the issue but the time a dog is permitted to bark. I taped a neigbors dog this evening for 90 minutes. The dog had been barking for 30 when I started the tape. I could hear the animal at the opposite end of my house. That is not reasonable by any standards. I have two dogs and and very conscientious of them and if they bark for more than a couple of minutes I make them come inside. I just don't understand how other pet owners can let dogs bark endlessly to the disruption of other peoples peace.
ReplyDelete