Council mulls corroboration needed in ‘barking dogs’ code

Ordinance on animals disturbing the peace up for adoption

The latest discussion on the “animals disturbing the peace” portion of the city code centered on whether “independent” witnesses to excessive animal noise could be from the same household.

The Yuma City Council also mulled whether a police officer could be one of the two witnesses needed to corroborate a violation.

On June 3, the council introduced an ordinance that amends the code to define “excessively,” update the definition of “animal,” clarify that provocation exists as a defense, and modify the penalty to civil sanctions, rather than criminal, with a warning provision.

The proposed ordinance is up for possible adoption during this Wednesday’s meeting.

Mayor Doug Nicholls noted that the proposed ordinance calls for two witnesses with independent knowledge to corroborate a violation. He questioned whether the ordinance should specify that the witnesses must have firsthand knowledge of excessive noise. City Attorney Richard Files said that it’s implied that it must be first-hand knowledge. As an example, Files explained that if a household complains that a neighbor’s dog has been barking for two nights in a row and a second neighbor makes the same complaint, then it meets the two-witness requirement.

However, Councilman Gary Knight questioned whether the witnesses had to be from two separate households, asking what happens if only one neighbor lives close enough to complain. He noted that two witnesses in the same household should be enough corroboration.

“I believe everyone is entitled to peace and quiet,” Knight said, adding that to require witnesses from separate households might be making it too difficult to prove.

Files agreed and said that it could require at least two individuals with independent knowledge of the noise.

But Nicholls pointed out that this could give more opportunity for disgruntled neighbors to falsely accuse each other.

“As long as the second corroborator can be the police officer, that solves the problem,” Knight said.

The proposed language is intended to clarify and improve the overall enforceability of the code, a staff report notes.

Previously, the council had discussed whether “care, custody and control” applied to dog-sitters, or persons with new dogs still in training. The new language expands the number of individuals that can be held responsible, and it also strengthens the ability of animal control officers to enforce the ordinance.

The staff report explains that the cited individual’s status as it relates to the offending animal can be presented to the officers, prosecutor or the court for consideration in charging, negotiations, or at trial. The inclusion of a warning provision protects against immediate sanctions and provides protection for an individual dog-sitting or whose dog is still settling in.

The proposed changes also acknowledge that someone can use provocation as a defense, for example, if a dog is barking in response to a cat or burglar.

If adopted, any person who violates the code after receiving a warning in the previous 12 months would be guilty of a civil offense and fined $50. A second violation within 12 months would increase the fine to $100. Two or more violations within 12 months would increase the fine to $200.