Officer (Leskin) Well I swear this is never ending post 306

[Sonoran Silkies]

With charges that broad, it seems like it should be pretty easy to fight. The narrower the charges, the more difficult. As all the responses have been so far...it says "animals." It does not say "Farm Animals," it does not say "Fowl" or "poultry" or "chickens." It says "Animals."

Take two or perhaps three of your least livestock looking chickens as exhibits/evidence. Do not refer to them as witnesses as Mr Clucky's owner did.

Include standard rental contracts that refer to pet deposits as evidence that pets are common and usual in residential areas. Take photos of dog houses, dogs in yards and cats with collars all in the residential area. Try to find unusual pets and photograph them, too.

I'll keep thinking....

 

[cassie]

There is no number of the law or ordinance they are trying to enforce and that you are allegedly violating. Whenever I have been issued a traffic ticket or a citation for something, anything, the law that pertains to the violation has been listed on the citation. Since the citation states you have non-permitted animals, there should be a law listed to back it up. Unless there isn't one. It seems to me if there was a law that applies here, it would be cited so you and/or your attorney could read it.

 

[cassie]

Oops. It does give a number. Didn't see it. Eyes bad or glasses dirty or both.

 

[Judy]

So what does #144 say, actually?

Glad you have an attorney!

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
Don't feel bad I missed it too. When we issued tickets the statute number was always listed before the explanation for arrest or ticket. I would like to see the actual township ordinance, and wonder if it is as vague as the officers issuing statement. I also wonder if the town is home rule and has it's own ordinances that supersede township variances. They can't have it both ways. An example would be a dry county but towns and cities issue liquor licenses. Holly should also check to see if any other residences have chickens, in a small town I am betting she is not the only one.

 

[EweSheep]

144 is listed in the post #74

I would have the original ordiance and find out exactly how it would be worded. If they say no poultry, then you would be out of luck.

I sure hope you can fight all the way!

 

[Holly O]

Ok I scanned part of the ordinance 144 The officer highlighted it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Wow what a idiot, the section clearly allows animal husbandry, and he is using it as a basis for this stupidity. Hopefully it is not a bubba judge cause I can see a behind chewing coming for a certain officer. The prosecutor needs to be aware of the statute he is writing from. The Officer has been watching to much law and order and believes the carp he sees. Basically he is trying to harass you into compliance, and you back him into a corner. Instead of admitting he was wrong he gets even more stupid.

We had a case like this a few months back by a fish and wildlife officer. The judge pulled him into chambers and we could hear the judge screaming from the courtroom. The officer left the courthouse with his tail between his legs. This thug in a uniform deserves the same let's hope the judge is intelligent and wise.

 

[Soccer Mom]

The way I understood it, he is saying she is in a single family dwelling district and not an agricultural district. Have you seen a zoning map?

I notice that there is nothing to prohibit someone from keeping pets. I would argue that you are not engaging in animal husbandry, but merely keeping some pet chickens and a pet duck.

That is a very poorly worded ordinance. I think you've got a good chance to win this.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
I think the officer is citing on the basis that she is keeping farm animals in a residential neighborhood, which is clearly permitted by the township ordinances, and usually is in most county settings. Most counties and townships leave this up to the town, or incorporated area. As the lazy town hall never took it upon themselves to address the issue they are trying to sneak it by.

A few counties have livestock restrictions but not many, it is clear this one does not. The officer is grasping at straws to look like he knows what he is doing. And it is clear he has no idea, I would not touch citing someone on a ordinance that for all purposes clearly says the opposite of what he says it does.

Zoning sometimes has nothing to do with the number of houses. A farm does not bring the tax income that a subdivision does. Also a farm rezoned and sold in subdivided lots brings a lot more money than selling as a farm, even if all the land is sold to one person. We are seeing a lot of this here in NC as Tobacco Farms are straining, a good portion are being rezoned and sold as subdivided lots. The wealthy come in and buy 10 to 20 lots at a time and build one single family dwelling, unfortunately some tend to bring the snooty attitude with them.

I want to add that it appears that the county is refusing to touch this issue, do to the fact that there is a county catch all in every county. But it can only be enforced by the proper county official, and I am betting they asked or pleaded and were turned down. I think it would be a little late now for them to try to use the approach as they have already stuck their foot in it and it would clearly be harassment.