[RecentlyRetired]

Originally Posted by olecapt

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.

I'm concerned with the wording of the charge "UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL". What does that mean? Who made the determination that my dog is vicious?

At first, when I saw the words “unlawful possession” I thought that perhaps I was in violation of a law requiring the dogs to be licensed.

When I lived in Henderson, I had licenses for the dogs as required by the City of Henderson.

I know that dogs must be licensed in the City of Las Vegas, but I live in Clark County Enterprise, not the City of Las Vegas. I don’t believe licenses are required where I live.

[guinnessjim]

my guess is that the wording is generic and applies to any incident involving altercations with pets. i guess it is 'guilty until proven innocent' in these cases.

[RecentlyRetired]

10.04.340 Vicious animal.

“Vicious animal” means any animal, except a dog in use by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency in the regular course of the agency’s duty, which bites, attempts to bite, attacks, attempts to attack, or otherwise constitutes a physical threat to humans or domestic animals, except an animal which bites, attempts to bite, attacks, attempts to attack or otherwise threatens a person or animal unlawfully upon the premises of its owner, or a person or animal which has provoked or teased it. (Ord. 1023 § 2 (part), 1987)


According to the above, my dog should not be classified as a "vicious animal" since by constantly kicking at my dog after she picked up her dog, the lady definitely "provoked or teased" my dog.

Seems to me they sent the summons to the wrong person. It should have gone to the lady's husband. He's the one in possession of a vicious animal...his wife!

[MomMom]

Brosati, have you contacted an attorney yet?

[RecentlyRetired]

Originally Posted by MomMom

Brosati, have you contacted an attorney yet?

Not yet. I need to find a criminal attorney with experience handling such matters. I’ve been calling the animal shelters asking for recommendations. Hopefully I will find one by this afternoon.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by brosati

Not yet. I need to find a criminal attorney with experience handling such matters. I’ve been calling the animal shelters asking for recommendations. Hopefully I will find one by this afternoon.

Check earlier in the thread...Bennysmom had one. Send her an email.

[MomMom]

Good, I really think that right now, your question has been answered. You need legal representation.

I'm hoping that by contacting a lawyer ASAP and getting them to work on your case, you won't need to go down and pay Metro a visit next month and the whole matter can be resolved and closed before it goes any further.


As a big, happy dog owner/lover, I'm rooting for you Brosati, keep us informed as to what is going on with your case...

[olecapt]

Brosati -

I can't find any Clark County ordinance. I do find an NRS one...

NRS: CHAPTER 202 - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

If that is the one you are clean. The facts don't appear to even allege a violation.

[RecentlyRetired]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Check earlier in the thread...Bennysmom had one. Send her an email.

That was my first choice. I called the attorney that Bennysmom recommended; unfortunately, they don't handle criminal charges.

Can anyone recommend a criminal attorney?

[RecentlyRetired]

Upon further research, I found the following on Misdemeanor - CCO 10.16.010 for which I am being charged. I've highlighted in bold the sections regarding "vicious" since the charge on my Summons is UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL.

The only one that could possibility apply is "It has killed or inflicted substantial harm upon a human being or other animal". If that is what the lady is claiming, that's an absolute lie!


10.16.010 Dangerous and vicious animal declaration.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section:

(1) An animal may be declared dangerous by the animal regulation officer if it constitutes a physical threat to human beings or to other animals and, on one or more occasions within eighteen months:
(A) It behaves menacingly to a degree that would lead a reasonable person to defend himself against substantial bodily harm; or
(B) It bites a person, but without causing substantial bodily harm.

(2) An animal may be declared dangerous by the animal regulation officer if it constitutes a physical threat to human beings or to other animals and, without regard to any previous behavior:
(A) It is used in the commission of a crime by its owner or keeper;
(B) While either at large or restrained, it causes serious injury or death to another animal that is not at large or is not otherwise in violation of this title; or
(C) It exhibits a condition or behavior which causes the animal regulation officer to believe the animal is a threat to public safety.

(3) An animal may be declared vicious by the animal regulation officer if it constitutes a physical threat to human beings or to other animals and:
(A) It has killed or inflicted substantial harm upon a human being or other animal; or
(B) After having previously been declared dangerous, with notice of the declaration having been provided to the owner or keeper it continues to exhibit the same type of behavior, which resulted in the declaration, or is in violation of the provisions of Section 10.16.030.

(b)

(1) An animal may not be declared dangerous pursuant to this section for constituting physical threat:
(A) To another animal which, or person who, provoked the animal as a result of and to the extent of the provocation;
(B) To another animal which, or person who, was unlawfully upon premises owned or occupied by the owner or keeper of the animal constituting the threat;
(C) To another animal which was running at large or otherwise in violation of this title; or
(D) In connection with its use by law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

(2) An animal may not be declared vicious pursuant to this section for constituting physical threat:
(A) To another animal which, or person who, provoked the animal, as a result of and to the extent of the provocation;
(B) To another animal which, or person who, was unlawfully upon premises owned or occupied by the owner or keeper of the animal constituting the threat; or
(C) In connection with its use by law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. (Ord. 3402 § 1, 2006)