For some excellent advice on how to handle noisy neighbors with or without a barking dog, including the anonymous letter approach, click here:
How to Handle Noisy Neighbors and Their Barking Dogs
If you are a victim of irresponsible dog owners with barking dogs, visit BarkingDogs.net
If you live in Monroe/Union County, NC also see Ordinances and Local Contacts
If you are in a position (e.g., judge, magistrate, law enforcement, city council, county commissioner, etc.) to put an end to nuisance dog barking or to enforce noise nuisance laws but don't view the problem as serious, click here: Why Exposure to Chronic Dog Barking is So Profoundly Debilitating and here: The Deleterious Effect of Exposing People to Noise

Legal Issues

If you are lucky your neighbor will stop the barking before the mess ever gets to court. However, if you are in a position similar to mine and your neighbors have received one or more citations yet the barking continues to disturb your peace and interfere with your life, your neighbors will force you to consider further legal action. Included on this page are definitions of legal terms and processes that could be important to you, court cases involving barking dogs and the constitutionality of ordinances, and some miscellaneous articles. Note: this page is for informational purposes only, and nothing on this page should be construed as legal advice such as you would get from an attorney.

Definitions of Legal Terms
Court cases involving barking dogs
  • Rae v. Flynn - 3rd District Florida Court of Appeals. "Here the trial court found Rae to be maintaining nuisance dogs in violation of the Monroe County Code, and that Rae's behavior and threats were a retaliatory response to Flynn's legitimate complaint about the barking dogs."
  • State of NC v. Maynard - Court of Appeals of North Carolina. "In her sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss on the grounds that the city ordinance limiting the number of dogs that she could keep in her residence was unconstitutional. We disagree." "Defendant was found guilty by a jury of violating Section 4.3 of the city ordinance and of keeping noisy animals."
  • State of NC v. Taylor - NC Court of Appeals. "The Martin County Animal Control Ordinance Section VI:  Noisy Animals is not unconstitutional for vagueness or indefiniteness and the trial court was correct in denying defendant's motion to dismiss."
  • State of ND v. Brown - Supreme Court of North Dakota. "The court held the words excessive, continuous, or untimely have a common understanding and are not vague."
  • State v. Farraiollo - Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Trumbull County - finds the animal noise ordinance to be vague
  • City of Columbus v. Kim - Supreme Court of Ohio -  "But Ferraiolo (above) is not before us, and it does not control our decision. We conclude that Columbus City Code 2327.14 is not unconstitutionally vague, because it sets forth sufficient standards to place a person of ordinary intelligence on notice of what conduct the ordinance prohibits." 
  • Humane Society-Western Region v Snohomish County - United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. "The absence of identifiable levels of noise, or decibel levels, does not render the noise ordinances unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that this method is not easily understood by individuals of ordinary intelligence or that it fails to protect against arbitrary enforcement."
  • Bal Harbour Village v. Welsh - District Court of Appeals of Florida, Third District. (number of dogs)

Articles & Forums



Animal Legal & Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law





No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)