I want to thank everyone for their responses, espically Charlie. I also want to put this into perspective, the fine is only $75, so the reason for the fight is on principle. I did speak to Dogtra and they have a consultant who told me that there were six other cases of lease law violation that asked for help and all of them lost. They are not able to provide any help because of liability, which i totally understand. But he does think most in the other cases the ordinance states a physical leash and my case does not. I will post the results of my case when it is over, probably about 3 weeks.

Brian,

I'd be interested in reading the ordinance you have been charged with violating, and doing some research on this myself. I'm only licensed in IL and for federal practice, but I can still tell you what I think. Can you give me more specifics?

Brian,
Also look up the definition of "at Large":

means off the premises of the owner or keeper of the dog, cat, or animal, and not under restraint by leash or chain by a competent person.

Specifically states restraint by leash or chain (not remote device).

Good Luck in court! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Maggie's correct. It looks like they have you on this one. They have defined not "at large" as being specifically on leash. The perils of the fine print.

That definition is under 06.2.010 - Definitions, Paragraph (F) of the City of Lakewood Municipal Code.
http://municode.cityoflakewood.us/show-chapter.php?chap=105

 Quote:

F. "At large" means off the premises of the owner or keeper of the dog, cat, or animal, and not under restraint by leash or chain by a competent person.

G. (...)

H. "Competent person" means a person who is able to sufficiently care for, control, and restrain his/her dog, cat, or other animal, and who has the capacity to exercise sound judgment regarding the rights and safety of others.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV but I think that if you decide to fight this law, you need to do so on several fronts. One thing you need to get the judge to look at is the "legislative intent." That what did the lawmakers intend to accomplish by passing this law. I'd say that is was to keep the public safe from such things as dogs running into the road, causing drivers to swerve, thereby causing accidents; and to keep them safe from dogs jumping on them and/or biting them. Usually that's accomplished by restraint via a leash. I'd argue that a leash doesn't truly accomplish that end. A dog on leash can pull the leash from it's owner's hands, it can break or the dog can pull the collar over his head by reversing and pulling if it's not put on properly. A leash provides only restraint, not control. OTOH, because of your training and the presence of the Ecollar, allowing you to correct the dog at a distance you had CONTROL, thereby guaranteeing the safety of the public.

Another front is that the law does not require "a leash" any device that keep the dog from roaming "at large" is acceptable, and I think that would include the Ecollar. However, you may have to demonstrate that you have control in the face of distractions to the satisfaction of the judge. As Ed suggest, a video tape might accomplish this but there's nothing better than bringing a well behaved, well trained dog to court "as evidence" and doing a presentation there.

I'd argue that had the legislative intent to have every dog in public on a leash it would have been quite simple for them to have specified that by using that language "on leash" in the law. But they didn't. They clearly intended that if a dog was under control via other means, he didn't have to be on leash. While the word "leash" is used in the definition of "at large" is isn't used in the wording of the law. Had they wanted all dogs to be on leash, it would appear that they'd simply have said so, instead of using the language "at large."

As to the advice from Dogtra, I'm sure that in those cases the language of the law specified " a leash."

Yikes! I think both Maggie and Charlie are right, they got me with the fine print. I did not see that and therefore my case no longer has any leg to stand on. Unfortunately i wont be fighting this since the term lease is used and clearly defined. I'll just buck up, pay the fine and grow eyes in the back of my head so i dont get caught next time, if there is a next time. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

Yikes! I think both Maggie and Charlie are right, they got me with the fine print. I did not see that and therefore my case no longer has any leg to stand on. Unfortunately i wont be fighting this since the term lease is used and clearly defined. I'll just buck up, pay the fine and grow eyes in the back of my head so i dont get caught next time, if there is a next time. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Where I live they have a leash law on the beach. I have a Female Rott, And use a e-collar when we go for a walk. Last weekend we where on the beach and I got cought with her off lead. The police officer was writeing the fine up. When I showed him that she is under my control as if I had a leash on her. It took about 30min to show Him what I ment and how the collar is used.
He still wrote out the fine but told me to fight it. So I am making a vidio of me working/training with an e-collar. I will post the outcome of this. ( I live in NC)

I'm not sure how it is in most courts in the U.S. but I've been to court here a few times (no, not as the accused!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) and if the defendant, for a summary conviction offense as this charge would be up here, is able to convince the judge that the dog was under control at all times and they appear to be honest in their testimony to relate this and/or demonstrate it to the Court then the judge would, IMO, let him walk.

Man, we are busting grow ops and all they are getting is probation and a couple hundred dollar fine!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> A dog off lead and under control probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow!!