If you walk into a
building without permission, let it be on your head!
Yes
Sometimes a dog can
and should be used as a defense.
Remember
A dog should at the
very least, be treated with the same respect you honor your other weapons.
In Latest Victory
For Dog Owners, Court Rejects Flagler’s Appeal on ‘Dangerous’ Ruling
FlaglerLive | May 17, 2018
A recent photo of
Bacchus, the 5-year-old labrador at the center of a wrangle between the county
commission and its owners. (Dawn Sweatt)
Bacchus,
the labrador at the center of a three year old incident in which the dog bit a
then-8-year-old boy who had entered the dog’s home unannounced, will not be
declared “dangerous,” and the county’s attempts to impose restrictions on the
dog and requirements of its owners have been decisively nullified by an appeals
court order.
The dog is owned by Dawn and Jay Sweatt, who live in an
unincorporated area of southern Flagler County. The Flagler County Commission
had declared
the dog dangerous at a hearing in September 2015
following the incident that July. The Sweatts appealed, and in 2017 a circuit
court judge ruled that the county had “exceeded its authority and violated its
own rules” and “failed to observe the essential requirements of law,” violating
the Sweatts’ due process rights. The county appealed that ruling.
On May 2, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, in a one-line
order, denied the county’s appeal, which means the lower
court ruling–by Circuit Judge Scott
DuPont–prevails.
“We
won,” Dawn Sweatt said in reaction to the ruling. “Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied our corrupt county commissioners.” It’s not over, as far as
she’s concerned: she’s considering filing suit against the county “for all the
undue stress that they put us through since they violated our rights.”
The case may not be over from a different perspective: the
DuPont order had called for “further proceedings” consistent with the order,
which implied a rehearing by the county. In the interim, the county commission
in February approved
a settlement agreement with the Sweatts that set
aside the dangerous dog determination–and the circuit court order–but also
required the Sweatts to build a physical perimeter fence around their entire
5-acre property, behind which the dog would be confined. The county would also
have required behavioral training for the dog and an electronic implant to
track Bacchus.
The
Sweatts never agreed to the settlement. “I have repeatedly told the county
attorney I will not fence in my 5 acres and I will not walk my dog on a leash
on my own property,” Dawn Sweatt had said after the commission approved the
agreement, which could not go into effect until the Sweatts approved it too.
“My dog does not go outside unless we are with him. Both of my dogs stay in the
backyard with my husband or myself. There have not been any incidences with my
dog other than this one child walking in my house on his own.”
After
the appeals court decision was issued, Sweatt said county officials had
“completely walked all over our rights from the very start of this whole
thing,” and that she was seeking to sue over those alleged violations. “The one
time the neighbor fired a shot at my dog Bacchus was on my property. he was
barking at someone riding his bike. There’s not a dog alive that wouldn’t do
that. We used to have neighbors here that had two poodles that look like they
were going to try to rip our head off every time we walked by them. But they
never went off their property just as my dog didn’t. If my dog would’ve bit
somebody off of my property I would’ve put him down myself. But my dog was in
my house under my protection when someone decided to let themselves in. Nothing
I can do when someone just walked in my house. I am just very thankful that
both of my dogs did not attack him. And that it was one bite and release. Not
the mauling they try to make it out to be. Not playing down that it was a
horrible bite and I would do anything I could to make a child not have to go
through that and had he not come to my house uninvited that wouldn’t have
happen. But I can’t do anything about it when someone just walks in my house.
Be a parent and watch your kids don’t let an eight-year-old roam the
neighborhood.”
The
Sweatts had originally been represented by attorney Vincent Lyon of Palm
Coast’s Chiumento law firm.
“The
family won in front of the hearing officer, at the Circuit Court and now at the
District Court of Appeal,” Lyon said, retracing the various steps at which the
case was heard: before it reached the county commission, a hearing officer had
recommended that the dog not be branded dangerous, citing the castle doctrine.
“The Circuit Court order that the District Court upheld did not pull any
punches, telling the Board how they went beyond their authority and violated
the family’s rights. It’s time for the Board of County Commissioners to accept
that and pass the order their hearing officer originally proposed.”
County
Attorney Al Hadded had argued in the appeal that DuPont had himself
short-changed the county by denying a motion for re-hearing. The county also
questioned DuPont’s interpretation of the law. “In overturning the board’s
decision, the Circuit Court misconstrued the County Administrative Hearing
Ordinance as well as principles related to quasi-judicial proceedings,” Hadeed
had written in a memo to the county commission, explaining the appeal. “Because
it was the first time a dangerous dog case has been appealed to the judicial
system, the Circuit Court’s ruling had the effect of establishing precedent as
to how the county will have to handle dangerous dog cases under the county
code. To correct the errors, the county appealed the ruling to the Fifth
District Court of Appeals.”
The
commission does not intend to rehear the case, Hadeed said today. “Rather than
redo the hearing for no purpose, as we advised the County Commission, we are
drafting a revised, updated ordinance that makes the procedures explicit for
future cases,” Hadeed said.
“While
there were some procedural ambiguities that it would be nice to clear up, I
don’t think that would have affected the outcome,” Lyon said, regarding the
possibility of a revised ordinance. (The existing ordinance was written around
2000.) “The Board can’t change Florida law.”
Though
Lyon has kept in touch with the Sweatts he is no longer representing them as
the firm, in Sweatts’s words, doesn’t wish to sue the county. The Sweatts are
exploring that approach through a different attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment