The City claims a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is proscribed by the ordinance. "An ordinance is unconstitutional when it forbids conduct in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." Burien Bark Supply v. Any term not defined within the statute must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning unless a contrary intent appears. Under their ordinary usage, Fischer claims the terms in the ordinance are too subjective. Therefore, as common usage terms, they must be defined by their dictionary meanings. To support his contention, he argues the terms "frequent", "habitual", "disturb", and "annoy", which are elements of the crime, have no legal definition either legislatively or judicially. 1855 (1983).įischer contends SMC 10.03.030 is void for vagueness on its face. "The test for evaluating the vagueness of legislative enactments contains two components: adequate notice to citizens and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement." State v. *543 To meet its burden of proof, a plaintiff must show an ordinance does not satisfy the requirements of due process. They are presumed constitutional, and a party claiming otherwise has the burden of proving them unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. The same rules of statutory construction apply to municipal ordinances as to state statutes. We accepted certification and granted direct review. The City appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to this court pursuant to RCW 2.06.030(2), (c). The court found SMC 10.03.030 void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment and Const. Whoever harbors such a dog maintains a nuisance.įischer received a 3-day suspended sentence, was fined $40, including court costs, and placed on probation for a period of 1 year.įischer appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court, asserting the statute in question was unconstitutional. No owner of a dog or owner or occupant of premises upon which a dog is kept or harbored may allow such a dog to disturb or annoy any other person or neighborhood by frequent or habitual howling, yelping or barking. This ordinance, which has been in effect for approximately 40 years, states:
#Dog license spokane code#
Schwartz, Assistant, for petitioner.ĭon Fischer was convicted in Spokane Municipal Court, on March 11, 1986, of violating Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) 10.03.030. “It’s the pet’s phone call home,” Hill said.The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. SCRAPS officials hope pet owners will recognize the benefits of giving their animals a permanent identification tag. “We’ve had that discussion to some extent, but the prices are still reasonable,” Hill said. The agency did consider whether the fee increase might further lower compliance. SCRAPS has about 35,000 licenses on file, but Hill estimates at least 80,000 pets are in the county. Spokane city and county require all cats and dogs to be licensed.
Hill said she hopes the city will adopt the same fees as SCRAPS to help the transition. The fees don’t affect Spokane pet owners, but the city and the agency in charge of its animal control services, SpokAnimal, are considering similar fee increases.Ĭity officials hope to consolidate city and county animal control efforts within two years, making SCRAPS the only regulatory agency.
The demand for the vouchers and rising operating costs, including gasoline and personnel expenses, made the fee increases necessary, she said. No vouchers are available this month and none were given out in October. The program provides spay and neuter coupons that encourage low-income pet owners and “folks who can afford to but maybe don’t want to spend the money” to license their animals, Hill said.įunding for the vouchers hasn’t kept up with demand, Hill said. The latest increase will give the voucher program an additional dollar from each pet license issued. This is the agency’s first major fee increase in nearly 17 years, besides a $3 increase in 2002 to fund the spay and neuter voucher program, SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill said. People in Spokane Valley, Cheney, Millwood and unincorporated areas will pay at least 40 percent more to license pets under fees approved by the County Commission and the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service. Pet licensing fees in Spokane County increase substantially beginning today.
0 kommentar(er)
