[brosati]

Originally Posted by brosati

Although I never heard from the District Attorney's office regarding this issue, I did receive a certified letter from the owner of the dog today demanding that I pay her Vet bill or she will take legal action against me.

The bill came to a total of $350.00. The date of the visit to the Vet was two weeks after the incident. Apparently the owner found a bruise on her dog and took it in for x-rays.

I called the Vet to verify that the visit actually took place, and was pleased to hear that the dog is fine.

It is obvious to me that this lady just wants to punish me for the incident, one way or another.

I’ve decided to pay the $350.00 and put this whole incident behind me even though I doubt that the bruise was caused by my dogs.

I received a letter from the District Attorney’s Office this weekend, so I guess this matter is not over.

I have been summoned to report to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Fingerprinting Bureau on February 6th, 2008 for police processing; and further summoned to appear at the Las Vegas Township, Justice Court, Regional Justice Center at 7:30 a.m., on February 20th, 2008, to answer to a charge of UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL.

Failure to appear in response to these summons will result in a warrant for my arrest.

I guess I will need an attorney after all.

I haven't been able to get much sleep lately worrying that they might take my dogs from me.

[guinnessjim]

Originally Posted by brosati

I received a letter from the District Attorney’s Office this weekend, so I guess this matter is not over.

I have been summoned to report to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Fingerprinting Bureau on February 6th, 2008 for police processing; and further summoned to appear at the Las Vegas Township, Justice Court, Regional Justice Center at 7:30 a.m., on February 20th, 2008, to answer to a charge of UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL.

Failure to appear in response to these summons will result in a warrant for my arrest.

I guess I will need an attorney after all.

I haven't been able to get much sleep lately worrying that they might take my dogs from me.

this is really disheartening to hear. did the lady push for this?

this will probably be a big pain in your a$$, but they wont take your dogs. i know of several instances where dogs got into fights at the dog park...no dogs were ever taken (including an instance where i think the dogs maybe should have been). unfortunately, i think your dogs might end up on a list though (kinda a three strikes thing).

but now, i would recommend an attorney. i think you have a case for dismissal that might keep your dogs off any list. if i remember correctly, that the lady has no 'proof' that your dogs did anything. she waited how long before the veterinary visit? couple of weeks, right? any number of things could have happened to her dog during that time period.

i hope for the best.

[Matt Angry]

Originally Posted by brosati

I received a letter from the District Attorney’s Office this weekend, so I guess this matter is not over.

I have been summoned to report to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Fingerprinting Bureau on February 6th, 2008 for police processing; and further summoned to appear at the Las Vegas Township, Justice Court, Regional Justice Center at 7:30 a.m., on February 20th, 2008, to answer to a charge of UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL.

Failure to appear in response to these summons will result in a warrant for my arrest.

I guess I will need an attorney after all.

I haven't been able to get much sleep lately worrying that they might take my dogs from me.

This is insane.

Please keep us up to date like you have been. I'm wondering how this will pan out.

[MomMom]

Originally Posted by brosati

I can't imagine that either one of my labs would hurt another dog, but I do realize that dogs can act unexpectedly at times.

I did not see my labs make any contact with the woman's dog, but again, I did not see everything because my view was blocked by the garage door slowly opening.

The animal control officer told me that the woman wanted to press charges because she told me to put the dogs back in the house or on a leash and I refused to do so.

If I had to do it over again, I would have done what she asked, but I was upset when I saw her kicking my dogs and did not want to give her the upper hand.

This all happened in my driveway right in front of my house. I don't know if the sidewalk in front of the house is considered to be my property, but other than that, my dogs never left my yard.

Even if it doesn't go to court, I would most certainly want to pay any Vet bill she may have received if in fact one of my dogs in any way injured her dog.

I asked the officer for her name, phone/number and/or address, but he wouldn't give me that information.

Hi Brosati

I just read over all the posts in this thread....WOW!

I guess David doesn't have much to do in his office, having his office wanting to try and prosecute this, instead of leaving it up to animal control.

I hightlighted the important statement you made. Your dogs bolted from the garage, to where the women were walking. In front of your driveway, which is City property (assuming you live in the City of Las Vegas or unincorporated Clark County)

There is an easement, from your actual property line to the street, I don't know how many feet it is, but every home and business has it. Your dogs were not leashed, but more importantly, you refused to follow the law by controlling your animals.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what transpired between you and the women, but if you acted hostile in any way, you can understand the reasoning for the women to press charges.

About 6 years ago, my then pup, who was 9 months old, was attacked while we were walking down our street. My pup was leashed, the other two dogs (a pitbull and a bullterrier) were NOT.

The pitbull pierced my puppy's ear, but I was able to kick both dogs off my pup before the owner of the two vicious dogs ran down the street to control them. If it wasn't for the fact that my dog was a pup, and while being attacked, rolled onto his back into complete submission, the two dogs would have really hurt him or killed him.

I called animal control, they sent an officer immediately. He took my statement, inspected my dog and visited the owner of the two attack dogs. That owner received a summons for not having his two licensed, and he got a warning. According to the animal control laws at that time, if you got 3 actual investigated and valid complaints about your dogs attacking other animals or people, you got your dogs taken away and euthanized.

As it was, these two dogs had to be quarantined for 10 days on their own property, they were not allowed off their property, even on a leash.

The owner of these dogs was not hostile, he did not threaten me, he immediately restrained the dogs. There was no screaming, no harsh words at all. He wanted me to come over and visit with him and his wife and "talk" about the incident. I refused.

Perhaps, if he had been hostile towards me, I would have called the police. The owner ot the vicious dogs had offered to pay for any vet bill for my pup, and had told the animal control officer the same.

I had no vet bill for the superficial tooth mark on my dog's ear, we were going to the vet that very afternoon for his pup shots, so the vet looked at the bite. There was no charge from the vet for this so I had no bill for it.

But the owner of the vicious dogs admitted guilt, both to me and the animal control officer. It was all noted in the report. Eventually, those two attack dogs got loose on two other occasions, both times biting children without any provocation . Both dogs were taken by animal control and euthanized.

Too bad your situation came to this, but I wish you all the best of luck and I hope this matter is dismissed..seems the DA should be having more "important" things to be doing than chasing after exuberant labby pups and their Mom...

[guinnessjim]

thanks for the detail, mom.

this is exactly the route that was taken during the incidents at the park...i didn't know the details on why the dogs were quarantined, therefore i didn't mention it. but the 10 day thing was absolutely part of it.

none of the people involved in any of those incidents had to go to court (if they had i would have heard about it...lotsa gossip in the park), and the incident were all significantly more serious than this.

i have to assume the lady is pushing this...if so, i wonder if it is possible to legally get her for wasting the court's time and the peoples $.

[MomMom]

Either that Jim or the plaintiffs know someone in David Rogers office...

It's so hard to clearly know exactly what happened..we just weren't there. A countersuit from brosati for defamation, libel and harrassment might be something the plaintiff (s) might consider dropping the charges for...

Clearly, brosati needs an attorney, this thing has gotten way out of hand and needs to be ended. The lawyers will hash out the details.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by MomMom

Hi Brosati

I just read over all the posts in this thread....WOW!

I guess David doesn't have much to do in his office, having his office wanting to try and prosecute this, instead of leaving it up to animal control.

I hightlighted the important statement you made. Your dogs bolted from the garage, to where the women were walking. In front of your driveway, which is City property (assuming you live in the City of Las Vegas or unincorporated Clark County)

There is an easement, from your actual property line to the street, I don't know how many feet it is, but every home and business has it. Your dogs were not leashed, but more importantly, you refused to follow the law by controlling your animals.

Sorry mommom you are incorrect. While an easment provides a right of passage it is still your property. In Clark County, where this occured, there is no leash law. As long as the dogs responded to his commands they were under control. One is not required to put the dogs in the house or leash them to have control. I would in fact suggest he press charges against the woman for kicking his dogs on his property. Certainly qualifies as a misdemeanor.

I wasn't there, so I don't know what transpired between you and the women, but if you acted hostile in any way, you can understand the reasoning for the women to press charges.

Up tight ladies with little dogs do that.

About 6 years ago, my then pup, who was 9 months old, was attacked while we were walking down our street. My pup was leashed, the other two dogs (a pitbull and a bullterrier) were NOT.

The pitbull pierced my puppy's ear, but I was able to kick both dogs off my pup before the owner of the two vicious dogs ran down the street to control them. If it wasn't for the fact that my dog was a pup, and while being attacked, rolled onto his back into complete submission, the two dogs would have really hurt him or killed him.

That happens. Big dogs poorly controlled can be a problem. That is not the case here however.

I called animal control, they sent an officer immediately. He took my statement, inspected my dog and visited the owner of the two attack dogs. That owner received a summons for not having his two licensed, and he got a warning. According to the animal control laws at that time, if you got 3 actual investigated and valid complaints about your dogs attacking other animals or people, you got your dogs taken away and euthanized.

As it was, these two dogs had to be quarantined for 10 days on their own property, they were not allowed off their property, even on a leash.

The owner of these dogs was not hostile, he did not threaten me, he immediately restrained the dogs. There was no screaming, no harsh words at all. He wanted me to come over and visit with him and his wife and "talk" about the incident. I refused.

Guy was wrong and he knew it. Not the case here.

Perhaps, if he had been hostile towards me, I would have called the police. The owner ot the vicious dogs had offered to pay for any vet bill for my pup, and had told the animal control officer the same.

I had no vet bill for the superficial tooth mark on my dog's ear, we were going to the vet that very afternoon for his pup shots, so the vet looked at the bite. There was no charge from the vet for this so I had no bill for it.

But the owner of the vicious dogs admitted guilt, both to me and the animal control officer. It was all noted in the report. Eventually, those two attack dogs got loose on two other occasions, both times biting children without any provocation . Both dogs were taken by animal control and euthanized.

Again an entirely different situation.

Too bad your situation came to this, but I wish you all the best of luck and I hope this matter is dismissed..seems the DA should be having more "important" things to be doing than chasing after exuberant labby pups and their Mom...

Now you got it.

Brosati you got to have a lawyer and you might even consider a counter attack. Ask him. You may well have the basis for bringing charges particularly if the women has admitted kicking your dogs. And a stern lawyer letter threatening suit for false arrest and defamation and whatever the lawyer can think up. When someone kicks you like this it is almost always better to counter attack.

This is of course easy for me to say as it is your money. But I think you should talk to a lawyer and see if you can't get on the offensive.

[regenald]

Just call the DA's office and ask to speak with the prosecutor assigned to the case. Find out what the court date is for. Its probably just a pretrial. Let the prosecutor know that you dispute the lady's version, but you paid her vet bill (paid restitution). He may even dismiss the charge.

It is highly doubtful the lady "knows someone from the DA" You got an automated summons based on an official complaint. Just go down and plea not guilty and try to strike a deal with the prosecutor. Believe me, the DA has a alot more to worry about than a dog bite.

[MomMom]

Stop picking apart my post Jim, I was just relaying what happened to me with my dog...

This was taken right from the Clark County Access website...

Clark County, Nevada - Government Services (broken link)



[B]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. [/b]

Maybe Kimosabe need to read up on animal law for both Clark County and the City...


I don't believe sidewalks or driveway aprons are PRIVATE property as you claim them to be. You are wrong sometimes you know...even though I luv ya....




City of Las Vegas Municipal Code





7.36.020 Interfering with pedestrians.
The owner or any person having possession, custody or control of any animal which interferes with a pedestrian or vehicle traffic, trespasses on school grounds, or damages the property of another person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Ord. 5220 § 33, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 152, 1991)

7.36.030 At large.
If any animal is at large, its owner or any person having possession, custody or control is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Ord. 5220 § 34, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 153, 1991)
“At large” refers to any animal not secured to and restrained by a leash or lead, or not confined within the real property limits of its owner or keeper by means of a fence, cage, coop, chain, leash or other restraining device.
(Ord. 5220 § 2, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 12, 1991)
“Confined” means a condition whereby an animal is restricted to the property of the owner by an enclosure or enclosed lot, secure enough so that the animal cannot bite, harm, or injure anyone by the animal overreaching the top of the fence or other enclosure.
(Ord. 3618 § 22, 1991)



7.36.050 Restraint and sanitation.
Every owner or any person having possession, custody or control of any animal, and keeps the same upon premises under his control, shall keep the animal restrained by a fence, cage, coop, chain, leash or other adequate means so that said animal shall not leave or escape from the premises upon which it shall be kept.
(Ord. 5220 § 35, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 155, 1991)
Restraint” means any animal secured by a leash or lead and under control of the owner or another responsible person and obedient to that person’s commands, or confined within the enclosed real property limits of its owner or keeper.(Ord. 3618 § 43, 1991)

Thank you to VegasResident for posting these codes in post #33...

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by MomMom

Stop picking apart my post Jim, I was just relaying what happened to me with my dog...

This was taken right from the Clark County Access website...

Clark County, Nevada - Government Services (broken link)



[B]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. [/b]

Maybe YOU need to read up on animal law for both Clark County and the City...


I don't believe sidewalks or driveway aprons are PRIVATE property as you claim them to be. You are wrong sometimes you know...even though I luv ya....




City of Las Vegas Municipal Code





7.36.020 Interfering with pedestrians.
The owner or any person having possession, custody or control of any animal which interferes with a pedestrian or vehicle traffic, trespasses on school grounds, or damages the property of another person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Ord. 5220 § 33, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 152, 1991)

7.36.030 At large.
If any animal is at large, its owner or any person having possession, custody or control is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Ord. 5220 § 34, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 153, 1991)
“At large” refers to any animal not secured to and restrained by a leash or lead, or not confined within the real property limits of its owner or keeper by means of a fence, cage, coop, chain, leash or other restraining device.
(Ord. 5220 § 2, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 12, 1991)
“Confined” means a condition whereby an animal is restricted to the property of the owner by an enclosure or enclosed lot, secure enough so that the animal cannot bite, harm, or injure anyone by the animal overreaching the top of the fence or other enclosure.
(Ord. 3618 § 22, 1991)



7.36.050 Restraint and sanitation.
Every owner or any person having possession, custody or control of any animal, and keeps the same upon premises under his control, shall keep the animal restrained by a fence, cage, coop, chain, leash or other adequate means so that said animal shall not leave or escape from the premises upon which it shall be kept.
(Ord. 5220 § 35, 2000: Ord. 3618 § 155, 1991)
Restraint” means any animal secured by a leash or lead and under control of the owner or another responsible person and obedient to that person’s commands, or confined within the enclosed real property limits of its owner or keeper.(Ord. 3618 § 43, 1991)

Thank you to VegasResident for posting these codes in post #33...

Comeon Darling you know what I do for a living. I know well what the codes say. First off this is the wrong code. Both Brosati and the court involved are County not City. And the codes are different. Clark County does not require a leash...simple as that. Restraint is not an issue. The owner is present. The animals are on the owners property. You can legally play with your dog on your front lawn without a leash...at least in the county.