My question involves civil rights in the State of: Maryland (Montgomery county).
Hi. Have a quick question.
We run with the dogs (20 pounds corgi and my girlfriend's sister 14 pounds yorkie mix, both still 7-10 months puppies) around a lake (2 miles) in a public park every morning around 8am when it is not that hot. At this time we usually meet 1-2 people, so very often I take the dogs off the leashes. Today I even forgot one of the leashes at home but the dog was on e-collar.
Like usually we met almost nobody except for a park police officer in the middle of the route. He told us if we know it is $50 citation for not having a dog on the leash. We immediately put the bigger puppy on the leash, but we did not have the leash for the second one, so we just continued to run (what else did I have to do? throw the dog in the lake?).
The pollice office got out from the car and said "Whose dog is this? ... Give me your ID. I will write you a citation". And he gave me $50 citation.
I respect the law and the police, so I am okay with that, but I disagree with one thing and about to go to the court (not because of the money).
I disagree because when he got out from his car he did ask why we did not put the second dog on the leash. Looks like he just wanted to give a citation but not to figure out about the situation.
He could write me a warning instead of the citation (it would be more fair), but he did not. I would definitely agree if I got a warning some time before, but it is my first time ever. I even never got a speed ticket in Maryland. He could give us an option to pick the dog up and go back. I would be happy to do that. But, "I will write you a citation" with out any questions .... ?
After he gave us the citation we continued to run. And I just do not see the logical explanation because he just allowed us to continue to run. Is these puppy less dangerous with citation?
Of course all of that is not that huge problem. I just hate when something like that happened, because it is a small tiny yorkie puppy, not a huge pit bull. Okay, give me a warning, not the citation.
My question if it makes sense to go to the court? Or will I look stupid for trying to appeal it?
Thank you.
Citation for Not Having a Dog on the Leash
Printable View
-
07-13-2017, 02:37 PMi15Citation for Not Having a Dog on the Leash
-
07-13-2017, 03:09 PMTaxing MattersRe: Citation for Not Having a Dog on the Leash
Montgomery County Parks regulations § 18(a) states that “Except in designated areas, no person shall bring or possess an animal on Park Property without keeping it at all times on a physical leash that is attached to the animal by collar or harness.” It thus requires that the dog be on a leash at all times unless in a designated leash free area. You didn’t have either dog on the leash initially and the officer could have written you the citation for both dogs promptly after seeing the violation. There is no requirement for a warning first, no requirement for the officer to give an explanation first, none of that. In our system where the laws are public (and especially today when most laws are easily accessible on the internet) everyone is assumed to know the laws that apply to them and the old maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is quite true in most instances, including this one. The issue for the judge or hearing officer if you go to court over this is simply this: did you violate the ordinance that that the citation says you violated? If you did, the court will convict you of the violation. Your argument appears to be only that you think it “unfair” that the officer ticketed you instead of giving you a warning. That is not a good defense.
The court isn't there to decide what is fair, it is there to decide if you violated the express provisions of the ordinance. What is fair is a nebulous thing anyway as what is fair in this circumstance will vary a lot depending on whom you ask. People are not dog lovers will say that the officer should have given you a citation for both dogs right off the bat and it was unfair to let you slide on not having the leash on both dogs from the start. Dog lovers who dislike leash laws to begin with would be more inclined to your point-of-view. But none of that matters since the fairness of not giving you a warning first isn't something the court is going to decide.
In short, if that is the only argument you have, I suggest you simply pay the ticket and forget going to court. You would indeed risk looking stupid to the judge arguing it was unfair that you weren’t given a warning first. As the regulation requires a leash and your dog was not leashed at any time in the park, you violated the ordinance. You admit that the dog was not on a leash, so you’d be guilty. -
07-13-2017, 04:26 PMi15Re: Citation for Not Having a Dog on the Leash
I knew someone would post it :)
Yes, I agree with you. But someone gets a citation and someone gets a warning. Event the officer told me he does not write a citation every time. Where is the logic? Looks like it is some kind of discrimination in my case.
About the court: people get speed tickets and go to court as well. Do they violate? Yes. But the court not always convict them.
What I do not agree about: the officer did not try to figure out.
I just do not want to have anything bad on my history. So stupid. -
07-13-2017, 04:30 PMadjusterjackRe: Citation for Not Having a Dog on the Leash
The officer has no obligation to give you a warning, ask you questions, or discuss it with you at all. And it doesn't matter what you think happens to anybody else.
Keep your dogs on the leashes from now on and you won't have any trouble. -
07-14-2017, 06:59 AMllworkingRe: Citation for Not Having a Dog on the LeashI think that you got the citation because you didn't even have a leash for the second dog.Quote:
Quoting i15
-
07-14-2017, 08:44 AMTaxing MattersRe: Citation for Not Having a Dog on the LeashDiscrimination based on what? Unless you have evidence that the officer discriminated against you because of your race or sex you really have nowhere to go on a discrimination argument. Officers have the discretion whether to ignore something, issue a warning, or issue a citation. Here, from the sound of it the officer might have let you go with a warning if you had a leash for both dogs with you and and had attached those leashes immediately and kept them on. But you had a leash for one dog and not the other. Not having that leash for the second dog may be what got you. In any event, as I said before, going into court and arguing you should have got off with just a warning is not a good defense and you’ll lose if you go into court with that.Quote:
Quoting i15
People lose traffic cases with the argument that the officer should have given them a warning rather than a ticket, too. Where motorists win these cases is either (1) the state screwed up on procedure in some fashion or (2) the defendant is able to at least cast doubt on the state’s case, for example, raising doubts as to the officer’s measurement of speed.Quote:
Quoting i15
What did the officer need to figure out? The regulation states you must have a dog on a physical leash (e-collars aren't good enough) and the officer saw you with 2 dogs that did not have leashes. That gave the officer all the information he needed to know that you violated the regulation. And while you were cited for one dog, you were not cited for the other one. The officer cut you a break there, and he did not have to do that. You could have been cited for both. Be glad he got you for just the one.Quote:
Quoting i15
This is a very, very minor offense that is not likely to cause you any problems beyond the fine you pay. It’s not much different than, say, a parking or speeding ticket.Quote:
Quoting i15
-
07-14-2017, 09:57 AMqwaspolk69Re: Citation for Not Having a Dog on the LeashYou broke the law. It's that simple. How were you discriminated? Who cares if it's a tiny dog or a huge dog? The law says all dogs are on a leash.Quote:
Quoting i15