[guinnessjim]

Originally Posted by MomMom

After reading this discovery, apparently, you were in the wrong here, big time.

City of Las Vegas

Animal Control (Official City of Las Vegas Web Site)

Animal Laws

Restraint Law - It is a misdemeanor for any animal to be at large witihin the city limits of Las Vegas.

not quite right mom....at large and unrestrained are two very different things.

[MomMom]

Originally Posted by guinnessjim

not quite right mom....at large and unrestrained are two very different things.

Go speak to the City of Las Vegas and Clark County Government offices Jim, those lines are cut and pasted right off their websites at the links I provided, guess it's an "individual interpretation" thing....

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by MomMom

Those two statements by the Animal Control Officer speak volumes...

And is probably fueling the D/A's fire...

If you had made an apology, immediately, to the ladies, showed them that you were containing your dogs (they really are not allowed to run loose in your front yard, at ALL) and offered immediately to pay for any vet bill...if you had showed any kind of remorse for your dogs to have been "over playful"

Things would have never gotten this far...

I might have pressed charges on you as well, had you acted confrontational to me. After reading this discovery, apparently, you were in the wrong here, big time.

Clark County Nevada

Clark County, Nevada - Government Services (broken link)

Restraint All pets must be restrained to the property of the owner, however, unsterilized animals have additional requirements to insure that the animal does not stray.


City of Las Vegas

Animal Control (Official City of Las Vegas Web Site)

Animal Laws

Restraint Law - It is a misdemeanor for any animal to be at large witihin the city limits of Las Vegas.

Mommom we have done this before. He is in the county. The county has no leash law. He is not required to have his animal "restrained" on his property. When he is present the animal can be with him without a leash.

If you don't believe me just check the leash laws. He was required to have his aminals under control which is the arguable point. He called his animals off immediately even though they intended no harm and arguable caused none.

[MomMom]

Oh all right, don't get your tighty whities all in a bunch, I understand all that, you are right, it's Clark County....perhaps I should have worded my statement..."dogs should not be allowed to run around loose in your front yard AT ALL"

Because they don't always listen when called, and sometimes you can't keep them under control. And you could get in trouble.

Better?

[RecentlyRetired]

Originally Posted by MomMom

Oh all right, don't get your tighty whities all in a bunch, I understand all that, you are right, it's Clark County....perhaps I should have worded my statement..."dogs should not be allowed to run around loose in your front yard AT ALL"

Because they don't always listen when called, and sometimes you can't keep them under control. And you could get in trouble.

Better?

I agree that I should have put my dogs in the garage as the lady demanded. That probably would have kept this from getting this far. But I saw her kicking my dog and I was just as upset with her as she was with me.

However, I don't see where I broke any law that would warrant a charge of "Unlawful Possession of Vicious Animals".

I attempted to get the dogs licensed, but was told that I could not because I live in the jurisdiction of Clark County Enterprise. The County does not require dogs to be licensed, nor does it provide for dogs to be licensed.

The dogs are current with their rabies vaccines, neutered, and micro chipped. That is all that is required for legal possession where I live.

It’s the “vicious” charge that has me concerned. I don’t see any evidence to substantiate that charge

In order for the dogs to be considered vicious, they first have to be known to be dangerous; and, they had to have killed or inflicted substantial harm upon a human being or other animal.

[olecapt]

Try....

Clark County Code

Go to Title 10 - Animals.

There is a whole section about "Dangerous/Vicious" Animals. It does not appear to align with what is going on. I would think it clear that they had to go after the animals first. The bad news is that they might be able to hold your pups for a while. But it appears they had to get them certified.

Anyway I should not be playing lawyer. But this all does not make much sense unless there is another set of applicable statutes that I can't find.

I think you are a victim of bureaucracy run amok. And I think your problem is the Animal Control Officer not the sisters. Someone is pushing this one and I suspect it is the officer.

[daveyjones978]

Brosati -

dude, this whole thing is a mess. I am so sorry that you have to go through all of this. I've been hesitant on replying, since I do not live there, so I don't know what the right laws and whatnot are. I gotta say though, after reading everything, your dogs probably won't get taken away. If animal control is stating the dog had brusing, and it may or may not be from the woman herself restraining her dog (which is in fact possible, if she was holding her dog in a vice grip, she could've done the damage herself), AND you already paid her vet bills (above and beyond what was stated in the report), I cannot see this going any further, and probably be dismissed.

That being said. Honestly, and please don't take this the wrong way because I am a dog owner my whole life; they pretty much are my children. This story had me FREAKING out (as GuinessJim can attest to) in fear that my dog's "agression" would be considered vicious (when I do finally bring him out there). But in re-reading all of this again, the one thing that keeps going through my mind - - - you should have put those dogs back in your house or your yard the SECOND that she asked you to. I hate to say it, but if you did that I think that it wouldn't have gone this far. Did your dog wince back from what you thought was her kicking your dog? Did you ever mention that she struck your dog to any of the attorneys or whomever?

I think the "vicious" charge is fluff. There is no evidence that your dogs were snarling or foaming, etc. IMO, any resonable judge will see the discrepencies there.

All in all, I really hope that this all works out... seriously. Good Luck!

[RecentlyRetired]

I was back in Court today. My attorney was able to get the bench warrant removed.

They have rescheduled the trial for Monday, April 7th.

It's too soon yet to know which DA will be assigned to the actual trial. As soon as that is known, my attorney will meet with him/her to see just exactly where they want to go with this.

Please let this be a lesson to everyone. Make sure you have absolute control over your pets at all times.

I’ve learned a very important lesson. Now when I arrive home, I am extremely careful to make sure that the garage door is fully closed behind me before I open the door that leads into the house. I know that my dogs will be on the other side waiting to greet me, and I want to be certain that I'm the only one or thing they see.

Also, I know my dogs bark and get excited when someone comes to the door, but I’m more aware now that the person on the other side doesn’t really know my dogs. What I see as excitement, they may interpret as aggression.

I wish to thank everyone for the support and encouragement you have given me as I travel through this nightmare. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone. Please don’t let it happen to you.

[jfkIII]

We'll stock the jury with dyn, olecapt, guinessjim, sheriff, daveyjones and ack! It will be a hung jury. Er, make that a well hung jury!

[guinnessjim]

Originally Posted by jfkIII

We'll stock the jury with dyn, olecapt, guinessjim, sheriff, daveyjones and ack! It will be a hung jury. Er, make that a well hung jury!

indeed!