Fucking Dog Licenses

V

Via!

New member
I got ticketed yesterday for having unlicensed dogs living in city limits. Yeah, I know, I should have licensed them. I don't because the city makes it nearly impossible to do. You either mail them a form and they mail back a questionnaire that you fill out and mail back. Then they mail back a request for proof of the answers you sent in etc... OR you can go to city hall during a specific set of ours and stand in a line that makes the DMV seem like an entertaining vacation only to get told to come back with some proof of something or other. In other words they make it so damn complicated to get the license that it's easier to just skip it all together. Most people do it that way which is why they've decided to enforce the laws.

What irks me is HOW they're going about it. Rather than wait for complaints etc, they are honestly knocking on EVERY single door and listening for barking dogs. Then they see how many licenses are registered to that address and leave a notice if they think there are more dogs than you have licenses for.

Yup that's right, they're performing a search without probable cause or a warrant. They simply go onto your property and look and listen for evidence of animals. Ring the bell, count the barking dogs, leave a citation and leave.

Of course the citation is a mere $20 which makes it about 10 times more expensive to fight in court than to just pay. But fuck me if it's not still a 4th amendment violation. The dogs are kept inside, they don't bark, they haven't bitten or threatened anyone, you can't see them from the street, they haven't gotten out and they haven't damaged anyone's property. Which basically means the city is simply performing blind searches looking for evidence of criminal activity without any reason to suspect such. And man does that PISS ME OFF!
 
WTF is a dog liscense, seriously? That's pretty ridiculous. I don't think that actually constitutes as a search though.

If the fines are only $20, wouldn't it be easier to just pay them than go through the hoops needed for a license? Or does each citation get more expensive/serious? I mean this is a civil citation, so it can't be that bad, right?
 
A dog license is basically a city imposed fee for keeping a dog. Basically it's a tax revenue.

The fine is $20 but it also requires that I license the dogs and go through the hoops. I could pay the fine but the next one is pretty hefty and the city might decide to confiscate the dogs if I be a pain in the ass about it.

As far as it not being a search, legally it counts. A state agent had to come onto my property to look for signs of criminal activity (or at least failure to comply with regulations). It'd be the same as the police stopping you and searching you just for walking down the street. (Granted it's not nearly as drastic as that but the same rules apply.) Without probable cause, a warrant or my permission there was no reason they should have crossed onto private land.

But yeah, it's just easier to pay the fine and meet their idiotic demands and get back into compliance with city codes.
 
I was being facetious. I've just never heard of a pet license before... that seems... pretty retarded.


Technically nothing of yours was searched though (especially if sounds could be heard outside of the house and you don't own the land/house), and this a civil penalty. I completely agree that the license and way they're handling it is stupid, but I don't think this really applies. Just saying.
 
I think the "how" they found out you had dogs invasive, but how do they expect to enforce this if you were dog sitting or something of that nature? I think it could be contested, but it's not worth paying a larger fine or losing your dogs.

And what would constitute idiotic demands?
 
I do own the land and the house. My property, not anyone elses'.

The whole thing is just retarded but whatever... it's $64 total or something like that for the penalty and the licenses. And about an hour of my time to go get it done.
 
When I licensed my pooch here in Boise, it was all done at the Vets, when getting his shots. It's really not that complicated. Perhaps the process has changed though, it was quite awhile ago. But I agree, the dog police is a bit ridiculous.
 
Yeah, they don't do it that way because my Vet is in Meridian. Oh the joys of having to go to specific vets because of the dog breed. (Most vets don't know the tricks to working with Greyhounds.) So I have to go through the Mayor's office.

Oh, and you're supposed to renew you license every year.
 
Nah, it's still the same. I wonder why just doing it at the vet or the shelter isn't the standard in all states. Would make it a lot easier, it seems.
 
Yes, but they wouldn't bark unless someone (an agent of the city) was on the property which they had no reason to be on. You see, they were performing an inspection (a search) without cause. In order to do that they'd have to have come onto the property and knocked on the door. The only reason they'd have to do that is to perform the inspection looking for the dogs.

So there you have it. They had no cause to be on the property and they had no permission and that makes it an unlawful search as best as I can tell.

It'd be like the cops just peeping through your windows to see if you had pot on the table.

But as stated, it's $20 which isn't enough to fight. I'll just pay it, license the dogs for the year and be done with it.
 
Wait, you have to renew the license yearly? That explains why the line is always so long. Sounds like a case of government inefficiency if I've ever heard one. What a pain in the ass.
 
Is it the actual cops doing this or the animal police? From what I have seen so far from watching animal cops is that the animal police actually do not need a warrant....On that show I've seen them bust down doors without a warrant.
 
1. They have to have a warrant or probable cause to bust a door down.
2. This is IDAHO. We don't believe in animal cops.
3. It was the city code enforcement douche.
4. It's still an illegal search without permission, a warrant or probable cause.

Again, it'd be the same if the cops just walked up and peeked through every window to see who had pot. Only, as Jung pointed out, it's a civil issue, not a criminal offense.
 
Back
Top