City Ordinances

[CJane]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MO

I don't know if this is the right forum, so I apologize in advance if I should move it.


I picked up a copy of my city's nuisance ordinances today and I have a few questions.

The following are declared to be nuisances affecting health:

< snip >

All diseased animals running at large

Who is to determine if the animal is diseased? If an "at large" animal results in a complaint, is the city obligated to investigate and determine if the animal is diseased?

Common drinking cups, roller towels, combs, brushes or eating utensils in public or semi-public places where not properly sanitized after use

Would this include take-out containers in which someone is feeding "at large" animals on a public sidewalk? Or would that be more like littering?

The keeping of animals and fowls in any area within the City not zoned for agricultural uses except pet cats and dogs, animals in public or licensed zoos, and farm animals in laboratories.

It seems to me that this ordinance makes a nuisance of ANY animal other than a cat or a dog, even if kept in your house - this would include rabbits, ferrets, fish, canaries, etc, right?

In general, when a city is passing ordinances, does that happen at a meeting of the board of aldermen or city council? My town has both (and I haven't ever lived in a town before, so cut me some slack for my ignorance please).

Are the minutes of these meetings generally publicly available?

How does one determine when an ordinance was passed/when it went into effect?

If one possessed (in this case) a rabbit in violation of the CURRENT ordinance, but possessed it prior to the ordinance being enacted/taking effect, is one "grandfathered in" or can the ordinance be applied retroactively?

 

[justalayman]

Who is to determine if the animal is diseased?

If an "at large" animal results in a complaint, is the city obligated to investigate and determine if the animal is diseased?

I'm not sure exactly what type of ordinance you are addressing here. It may concern a person allowing a diseased animal to run free. Of course, that person would have some 'splainin' to do.

But what you posted could also simply be addressing the situation where an animal that appears to be diseased could be treated in some manner not allowed to be used against an animal that does not appear to be ill.

Would this include take-out containers in which someone is feeding "at large" animals on a public sidewalk? Or would that be more like littering?

if you notice, all the items you mentioned could have saliva, or other personal germs on them due to their use. It is improper and unsanitary to cause others to be exposed to such germs and as such, it is a violation of the health codes rather than a littering ordinance. Health code violations are more serious simply because they concern, well, your health.

It seems to me that this ordinance makes a nuisance of ANY animal other than a cat or a dog, even if kept in your house - this would include rabbits, ferrets, fish, canaries, etc, right?

it does sound a bit like that. Is that all of the verbiage concerned with that specific statute?

The term "fowl" infers birds raised for food sources and not generally a parakeet kept as a pet.

Maybe you cannot keep a parakeet, mynah bird, ****atoo, or parrot. That would suggest a bit more investigation. Many places do outlaw ferrets. Rabbits are generally not kept as pets but as a food source.

I believe the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit "mini-farms" and not prevent pets.

In general, when a city is passing ordinances, does that happen at a meeting of the board of aldermen or city council? My town has both (and I haven't ever lived in a town before, so cut me some slack for my ignorance please).

Not familiar with aldermen but even so, I believe it would be the council that makes the laws.

Are the minutes of these meetings generally publicly available?

of the public meetings, they should be. Most states have open meeting laws requiring such and to allow attendance of the general public.

How does one determine when an ordinance was passed/when it went into effect?

there will be an "effective" date or some other term meant to mean the same thing for when the ordinance goes into effect. Their should also be a record of when the ordinance was passed as well. They are often included in the actual writing of the ordinance. If you read the actual ordinance records (book of ordinances) they probably should be such dates included there.

If one possessed (in this case) a rabbit in violation of the CURRENT ordinance, but possessed it prior to the ordinance being enacted/taking effect, is one "grandfathered in" or can the ordinance be applied retroactively?

ex-post facto laws are illegal That does not always mean an existing situation is grandfathered in. There are justifications for making laws that while it cannot make it illegal in the past to possess the animal, it can make it illegal from the point of the effective date forward.

 

[CJane]

I'm not sure exactly what type of ordinance you are addressing here. It may concern a person allowing a diseased animal to run free. Of course, that person would have some 'splainin' to do.

The header says: CHAPTER 215 NUISANCES ARTICLE I. GENERALLY NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH

Then it says

A. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting health:

The "diseased animals" portion is #2.

But what you posted could also simply be addressing the situation where an animal that appears to be diseased could be treated in some manner not allowed to be used against an animal that does not appear to be ill.

Later in the ordinance, it outlines what the city can do if it finds there is a violation of the ordinance - which amounts to ordering the "party" to "abate or remove the violation".

if you notice, all the items you mentioned could have saliva, or other personal germs on them due to their use. It is improper and unsanitary to cause others to be exposed to such germs and as such, it is a violation of the health codes rather than a littering ordinance. Health code violations are more serious simply because they concern, well, your health.

I get that, and they're listed as #9 of the Ordinance referenced above.

There is a woman in town who feeds multiple stray cats (all of whom appear to be diseased - gloopy eyes, matted/missing hair, limping, etc) out of takeout containers and random bowls, cups, etc outside her residence. Her residence is street level, so often these containers are sitting on the public sidewalk and attracting these "diseased" and "at large" animals.

it does sound a bit like that. Is that all of the verbiage concerned with that specific statute?

That's all that's contained in that Ordinance as it relates to the keeping of animals. It's #13 of the referenced Ordinance. It DOES seem to "outlaw" any animals that are not cats or dogs. Doesn't it?

The term "fowl" infers birds raised for food sources and not generally a parakeet kept as a pet.

Yes, I looked up the definition, just to be sure because I thought it pertained only to chickens, ducks, etc. The secondary definition is "all birds".

Maybe you cannot keep a parakeet, mynah bird, ****atoo, or parrot. That would suggest a bit more investigation. Many places do outlaw ferrets. Rabbits are generally not kept as pets but as a food source.

Rabbits have become quite common as house pets. However, the ordinance seems to disallow ANY pets other than cats/dogs. I think...

I believe the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit "mini-farms" and not prevent pets.

That would be my belief too. But how does one interpret the intent of such a specific ordinance? And what defines a pet?

Not familiar with aldermen but even so, I believe it would be the council that makes the laws.

Ok, that gives me someplace to start. Thanks.

there will be an "effective" date or some other term meant to mean the same thing for when the ordinance goes into effect. Their should also be a record of when the ordinance was passed as well. They are often included in the actual writing of the ordinance. If you read the actual ordinance records (book of ordinances) they probably should be such dates included there.

I was given these copies by the City Clerk. She did not allow me to look at the actual book, only asked me which section I wanted and made the copies.

ex-post facto laws are illegal That does not always mean an existing situation is grandfathered in. There are justifications for making laws that while it cannot make it illegal in the past to possess the animal, it can make it illegal from the point of the effective date forward.

I understand. That would have to be clarified somewhere though, yes?

 

[justalayman]

CJane;2392920]The header says: CHAPTER 215 NUISANCES ARTICLE I. GENERALLY NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH

Then it says

A. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting health:

The "diseased animals" portion is #2.



Later in the ordinance, it outlines what the city can do if it finds there is a violation of the ordinance - which amounts to ordering the "party" to "abate or remove the violation".

I get that, and they're listed as #9 of the Ordinance referenced above.

There is a woman in town who feeds multiple stray cats (all of whom appear to be diseased - gloopy eyes, matted/missing hair, limping, etc) out of takeout containers and random bowls, cups, etc outside her residence. Her residence is street level, so often these containers are sitting on the public sidewalk and attracting these "diseased" and "at large" animals.

In my area, we actually have an ordinance against feeding strays like that, sick or not. What she is doing is acting as a defacto owner and causing the sick animals to continue to live as well as be drawn to the general public. She needs to stop that. While rabies is not real common in domestic animals, the more they are exposed to wild animals, the more common it becomes. She is also guilty of leaving materials that have germs on them out. Another violation.

That's all that's contained in that Ordinance as it relates to the keeping of animals. It's #13 of the referenced Ordinance. It DOES seem to "outlaw" any animals that are not cats or dogs. Doesn't it?

yes and it may be intentional. You would have to ask for clarification or research case law on the matter.

Yes, I looked up the definition, just to be sure because I thought it pertained only to chickens, ducks, etc. The secondary definition is "all birds".

but it is what they intended it to mean when they wrote the ordinance. It could be either.

Rabbits have become quite common as house pets.

that's just what we tell our kids. They really are planned dinner guest. Guests of honor, you might say.

However, the ordinance seems to disallow ANY pets other than cats/dogs. I think...

again, it may be intentional. Cats and dogs are so ingrained in our society at pets, it is difficult to outlaw them but any type of animal can be a nuisance if allowed to run free. Maybe they are just trying to nip problems in the bud before the blossom.

That would be my belief too. But how does one interpret the intent of such a specific ordinance? And what defines a pet?

case law, writers clarification, councils clarifications.

Ok, that gives me someplace to start. Thanks.

anytime



I was given these copies by the City Clerk. She did not allow me to look at the actual book, only asked me which section I wanted and made the copies.

I understand. That would have to be clarified somewhere though, yes?[

In our local ordinances, I often see grandfathering clauses written into the ordinance. If it is not written in, it can be assumed there is no grandfathering but it may be able to be contested in court.

 

[CJane]

In my area, we actually have an ordinance against feeding strays like that, sick or not. What she is doing is acting as a defacto owner and causing the sick animals to continue to live as well as be drawn to the general public. She needs to stop that. While rabies is not real common in domestic animals, the more they are exposed to wild animals, the more common it becomes. She is also guilty of leaving materials that have germs on them out. Another violation.

I wondered if she would be considered the "owner" since she's providing them with food, etc.

yes and it may be intentional. You would have to ask for clarification or research case law on the matter.

This is the down side of a town of 500 people. "Case law" seems relatively impossible to find.

but it is what they intended it to mean when they wrote the ordinance. It could be either.

So, in my hypothetical, should I worry that my koi are, in fact, a violation? Or my kids' pet rats that they keep as part of a 4-H project?

that's just what we tell our kids. They really are planned dinner guest. Guests of honor, you might say.

See, that's just not right.

again, it may be intentional. Cats and dogs are so ingrained in our society at pets, it is difficult to outlaw them but any type of animal can be a nuisance if allowed to run free. Maybe they are just trying to nip problems in the bud before the blossom.

I would think so too. However, in one case I know of, the person accused of violation keeps the "illegal" animals properly contained/fed/tended to/etc (in this case, 4 "pet" hens). When she got them, she talked to a Council Member, and he told her that as long as they were "pets" and not being kept for "agricultural purposes", they were not in violation of any ordinances.

However, there are MANY "at large" dogs of all breeds/shapes/sizes/levels of aggression in town that go ignored because they're not "diseased" and there is no leash law.

I find THAT odd.

In our local ordinances, I often see grandfathering clauses written into the ordinance. If it is not written in, it can be assumed there is no grandfathering but it may be able to be contested in court.

Nothing that I can find indicates that anything is grandfathered in. But I can't find anything indicating when the ordinance took effect either.

 

[CJane]

Ok, trying to help this person out.

Issues are:

Person owns 4 hens. Before getting them, she spoke to a couple of the city aldermen and was told that as long as they're "pets", it's perfectly ok to own them.

Brought the hens home in August/September 2008.

Someone in town complained in May 2009.

in October 2009, owner of hens received a summons to appear for violation of city ordinance. In that summons, it states that she started keeping chickens in violation of ordinance on or about July 1 2009.

*****

Ok, so she was thinking of finding the hens new homes anyway because while they're excellent at eating bugs and snakes and other nasties, they're just as excellent at eating the raspberries right off the fine, digging up the flowers, and otherwise being a pain when not kept in the shed. Getting rid of them is not the problem.

The problem is that the same ordinance that "outlaws" the hens contains language indicating that when the "abatement officer" becomes aware of a potential nuisiance, they must notify the violator via personal service or CRR letter of the violation and allow not less than 15 days to abate the issue.

IF the person does not abate the issue, THEN the city must hold a hearing to determine if the violation is actually a nuisance and at that time can file charges.

******

This person was never served with any notice of violation, though one is attached to the summons to appear on the charges.

*****

Questions are:

Is this lack of service reason to have charges dismissed?

If so, does one simply call the city prosecutor and speak to them re: dismissing the charges?

Is a city code violation considered "criminal"? Potential "punishment" is $500 and 60 days in jail.

How does one request a continuance? I'm only familiar with civil cases and am unsure about the procedure for something like this.

Summons is to appear in XXXX County Court, XXXX Municipal Division... which is located in city hall, but I presume it will be in front of a "real" judge?

I really want to offer concrete advice, but am floundering a bit.

Yes, I know it's silly to go through all this about some chickens, but even though she's planning to not own them anymore anyway, it seems important not to let the city "get away with" strongarming her and violating their own ordinance in the process.