Pet licensing sweep

[jdubwaldo]

For anyone who cares here you go....

Unfortunately I have to admit that aknowledgeable person is right.  The "plain sight doctrine" is correct.  Anything that can be seen, heard, etc. is generally not an unreasonable search.  They knock on our door, the dogs go postal, this is also plain sight.  In itself, this isn't an unreasonable search.  Everything in that example is proper, and could be gleaned through their own senses.  I don't know if that means they could storm the house, though. I would certainly think not. 

There are even some famous U.S. Supreme Court cases that say the police can use super high tech equipment to (for example) fly over your property (to look for marijuana plants), etc. and it isn't a search. This all falls under the plain sight doctrine (even though its plain sight + fancy equipment).

[chrizow]

Unfortunately I have to admit that aknowledgeable person is right.  The "plain sight doctrine" is correct.  Anything that can be seen, heard, etc. is generally not an unreasonable search.  They knock on our door, the dogs go postal, this is also plain sight. 

i wonder what they can do if you just say "no, i dont have a pet" even if the dog is audibly barking from another room.  they can't come inside your house, and i really would hope they wouldn't do return visits on the same house.  "We're dog-sitting for my friends who are in Nepal.  They live on Ward Parkway, why don't you go canvas their neighborhood?"  problem solved!

[aknowledgeableperson]

Yes, the city has more effective means of raising revenues but it's hands are tied because of the Hancock Amendment that requires a vote of the people.  In times like this it would have been easy to increase the percentage of E-tax and/or the property tax rate and/or a sales tax and/or any other taxes the city collects (much like WyCo and JoCo have done in the past).  The city already has on the books authority to require pet licenses and penalties if a pet is not licensed.  So it is easier to enforce what you currently have as opposed to trying to get additional legislation for something new to enforce.

When the city did this in the past a private firm was hired to do the house-to-house checks with the expectation that the cost of the contract would be below the amount of additional revenue collected, in the current year and future years.  Remains to be seen what happens this time.


Of course the city could layoff additional animal control officers but then have citizens complain about packs of wild dogs roaming the neighborhoods.

i wonder what they can do if you just say "no, i dont have a pet" even if the dog is audibly barking from another room.  they can't come inside your house,

They don't have to come into the house.  Just write the ticket and leave.  It would be up to you to go to court to fight the ticket.

[drumatix]

i wonder what they can do if you just say "no, i dont have a pet" even if the dog is audibly barking from another room.  they can't come inside your house, and i really would hope they wouldn't do return visits on the same house.  "We're dog-sitting for my friends who are in Nepal.  They live on Ward Parkway, why don't you go canvas their neighborhood?"  problem solved!

True. This is even more of an interesting point if someone has cats, rather than dogs. The cats would likely be lounging around in another room, unseen, unheard.

So you tell them you've got no pets -- whether it's true or not. It's true for me. I have none.

The $75 fine for not licensing your pets shows up in the mail. What's the easiest way out of a situation like this? Paying it and shutting up, obviously. Deal with a bunch of bureaucrats or pay a relatively small fine? I'd honestly probably pay the fine if the situation couldn't be fixed over the phone or by mail. That's FAR easier to afford than blowing half of a day going downtown.

Seriously -- I want to know how they enforce this fine. Property seizure? Threats to take a non-existent pet away? ...is this even an enforceable fine... or is it a total farce? If it's the latter, then the big flashing REVENUE GRAB sign just gets brighter.

[jdubwaldo]

Misrepresentation?

In any event, my hubby is now having me license our pets.  Animal Control wins.  haha! 

[drumatix]

They don't have to come into the house.  Just write the ticket and leave.  It would be up to you to go to court to fight the ticket.

How would I prove that I don't have a pet?

[studentper]

when you get the notice just mail in the $10 to license the pet.  after all, you did break the law, got caught, the (at least with the notice i got) city is only issuing a warning and giving you the address to send the original fee.  you'll do the same dance again in 5-7 years, because the city never sends renewal notices and pet registration is never on the top of anybody's mind.

i got one of these notices living in brookside 5 years after registering my dog, sent in the money, and the city never cashed the check.

[chrizow]

They don't have to come into the house.  Just write the ticket and leave.  It would be up to you to go to court to fight the ticket.

yeah, but the city obviously has no way of definitely knowing who has a dog and who doesn't, unless a homeowner admits to having the dog.  if animal control asks me "do you have a dog?" and i say no, they can't ticket me.  if they see or hear our dog, then how could they fine me if i say that the dog belongs to someone else?  it seems that the entire premise of the fine depends on the homeowner actually admitting they own the animal.

[jdubwaldo]

Is lying misrepresentation to a govt official?  If you call animal control that!
 
At the end of the day I'd rather pay $10 for a one year license than a $75 fine (x3 in our house), so we are getting the stupid license.  Since we vet in OP, this has never even crossed my mind.....

Personally I find this an interesting thing to think about in regards to rights, nonetheless....

[midtown guy]

Personally I find this an interesting thing to think about in regards to rights, nonetheless....

I agree -- because I think if they were going door to door looking for anything more significant than pet licenses people would be REALLY upset. Like I said, if they were going door to door on the West Side looking for illegal immigrants, there would be an outrage. But targeting neighborhoods looking for unlicensed pets?  Many are fine defending the city for it.

I find it equally interesting just to see the city continue to levy a fight against its residents vs trying to make even remotely enjoyable to live here. They seem like they consistently just try to make things harder on the people who are causing no problems whatsoever vs dealing with the real social problems in this city. We just seem to have it all wrong here.

[mean]

What about the feral cats that I occasionally leave food on the porch for? Are those 'my' pets? I certainly don't consider them pets.

[midtown guy]

What about the feral cats that I occasionally leave food on the porch for? Are those 'my' pets? I certainly don't consider them pets.

According to city bylaws, if you feed them for 3 days, they're yours. So not only would you need to license them, if you have more than 4, you are over the pet limit. Yet another ridiculous part of our animal control bylaws. Whatever you do, don't admit to feeding them.

[mlind]

I support licensing dogs since it does show a certain amount of owner responsibility re rabies vaccinations, etc.  However, going from house to house is over the top.  

It may be just another revenue source.  Cities are trying to squeeze dollars out of everything.  See the information below about running a red light and getting caught on camera in California.

For starters, there was the $100 base fine. Most of that goes to the city, and the leftovers go to County.

Then comes the real hit:

-- A $100 state penalty - $70 of which is divvied up among a dozen programs, including crime-victim restitution, witness protection, a Department of Fish and Game preservation fund and even a fund for victims of traumatic brain injuries. The other $30 goes to the county's general fund.

-- A $70 county penalty that goes for automated fingerprint identification, court and jail construction and other programs.

-- A $20 penalty for a state DNA crime evidence collection program.

-- A $55 fee for more court construction.

-- A $20 assessment for the county's emergency medical system.

-- A $20 court security fee to pay for all those deputies and screening devices at the county's courthouses.

-- And a $20 surcharge that goes straight into the state's general fund.

But wait - there's more, including:

-- A brand new, $35 assessment that the Legislature approved last fall to help cover $5 billion in revenue bonds for even more courthouse construction.

-- A $1 night court fee.

-- And finally, a $49 fee for the privilege of signing up for traffic school.

Add it all up, and the red-light runner - whose infraction was caught on camera - is out $490.

Community service  makes the driver ineligible for traffic school - a course costing another $15 online - which is needed to keep your record clean and you auto insurance from going up.

Of course, with ever-increasing numbers caught in the ticketing squeeze, courts now have an option to collect from errant motorists on the installment plan. Or allow them to defer payment.

With a $30 penalty fee, of course.

[aknowledgeableperson]

if animal control asks me "do you have a dog?" and i say no, they can't ticket me.  if they see or hear our dog, then how could they fine me if i say that the dog belongs to someone else?  it seems that the entire premise of the fine depends on the homeowner actually admitting they own the animal.

The dog is in your house and if it is seen or heard by the person that is all that is needed.  The burden is then on you to prove it isn't.  The person writing the "ticket" is not the prosecuter nor judge nor jury nor executioner.  Jusr someone who witnessed evidence of non-compliance of pet licensing.

[chrizow]

The dog is in your house and if it is seen or heard by the person that is all that is needed.  The burden is then on you to prove it isn't.  The person writing the "ticket" is not the prosecuter nor judge nor jury nor executioner.  Jusr someone who witnessed evidence of non-compliance of pet licensing.

well, then i'll just sic the dog on them.

[FangKC]

What is the difference between the City canvassing neighborhoods looking for illegal pets, and say, city workers canvassing the neighborhoods looking for illegally constructed additions to your house--like a porch, deck, garage, or room that doesn't pass code? Or say a property that is overgrown with grass or weeds?

People building rickety structures that don't pass code can cause injuries and harm to others.  What if your neighbor, or landlord, builds an addition onto a house and does the electrical work himself, and a fire results that causes your home, or apartment, to be damaged as well?

You can be ticketed for violating an ordinance.

Would anyone be upset if city workers canvassed neighborhoods looking for abandoned cars sitting on the streets, left on a vacant lot next to your house for weeks at a time?

How about city workers patrolling neighborhoods looking for piles of illegal trash and furniture piled in yards, or on the curb, that violate the trash pickup ordinances?

They are monitoring the neighborhood looking for people avoiding the law. Code enforcement is necessary to keep a city from becoming a pit. Many people on this forum have complained that Kansas City doesn't do enough to enforce building codes for example. That many property owners get away with letting their buildings rot or deteriote to the point that they have to be torn down, or create blight for neighbors.

And what if unregistered animals hasn't had their shots, and say the dog eventually bites someone and has rabies, or your outdoor cats spread distemper to other neighborhood cats?  What if your illegal, unvaccinated dog bites the postal delivery person?

City officials do have the right, and obligation, to patrol looking for violations--just as the police are supposed to patrol neighborhoods to enforce laws.

These types of ordinances exist for quality of life reasons. People complain all the time because the City doesn't enforce ordinances and laws enough, and it affects their living standards and property values. When someone collects junk on their property, or doesn't mow their grass or remove trash, rats show up.  Too many pets on their property create foul odors.  Unsecured houses are havens for criminal activity and become crack dens.

A lot of these ordinances exist for quality of life reasons. They are not only to protect you, but your neighbors.

We also don't know the reason for the pet canvassing. Perhaps a lot of sick and unvaccinated pets are showing up at animal shelters--and the City has found that many of them were unregistered. Perhaps the City is finally becoming proactive.

[midtown guy]

Fang,

There is actually a really big difference between all of those things and this. The 4th Amendment allows for protection for searches and seizures unless there is due cause to do so (which is where warrants come in). Over the years, various legal cases allow for things "in plain sight" to be exempt from the 4th Amendment -- because if you can see it from the road, then that is due cause all on its own.

Knocking on your door to see if there is a dog or cat inside the home is very different than being able to see something from the road.

Meanwhile, it's interesting that you mention all of the codes violations and building codes stuff - which the city DOESN"T do sweeps for -- and I think 95% (or more) of people in this city would say that standard codes violations are a MUCH bigger issue than unlicensed dogs (not to be confused with stray, roaming dogs, which KCMO Animal control does little about because they're too hard for them to catch).  Of all the problems we have in this city, dog licensing is where we're going to put our foot down?

I try to always look at things as a "what if this affected me?" sort of way.  And I can't help thinking that this is very similar legally (although definitely less significant on the social scale) to going door to door checking for illegal immigrents. If the uproar about Arizona's new law is any indication, there would be outrage over that. But why wouldn't we be equally upset with this?

[mean]

According to city bylaws, if you feed them for 3 days, they're yours. So not only would you need to license them, if you have more than 4, you are over the pet limit. Yet another ridiculous part of our animal control bylaws. Whatever you do, don't admit to feeding them.

Three days in a row? Three days over the course of a month? A year? Ten years?

I guess now that I have been made aware of the law, and that I am likely to be in violation of it, I'll stop feeding them. Not a huge deal, but laws like this really piss me off. Does the government really need to be making lawbreakers of crazy cat ladies and people who leave food on the porch for the hoodcats that keep the mice in check? What greater good is served by that? Whose rights are they protecting? Just ridiculous.

People building rickety structures that don't pass code can cause injuries and harm to others.  What if your neighbor, or landlord, builds an addition onto a house and does the electrical work himself, and a fire results that causes your home, or apartment, to be damaged as well?

The libertarian in me kind of hates this. All of it.

[midtown guy]

Three days in a row.

I think it's interesting that if you have a cat in your home and allow it to starve to death then you could be convicted of a felony for animal cruelty. However, if you have a cat on your front porch, it's against the law to feed it to keep it from starving to death. I'm not sure how that makes any sense at all.

[mean]

So if I feed them every other day, they're not technically my pet?