City of Clay Ordinance Banning Pit Bulls Under Fire

            

            The city of Clay recently passed an ordinance which bans “vicious” or “dangerous” dogs, and specifically includes language banning any and all pit bull breeds, whether a particular pit bull dog is vicious/dangerous or not.  Upon reviewing the ordinance, which you can read here, several issues jump out. 

First and foremost is the outright banning of pit bulls dogs, without regard for the nature of a particular dog.  There are two schools of thought on the safety of pit bulls.  Some believe that pit bulls have an innate, natural tendency to be vicious.  Certainly, news reports would lead one to believe that a high percentage of dog attacks involve pit bulls.  Others believe that any dog can be made to be vicious if treated improperly, and any dog, including pit bulls, can be made to be well-behaved if treated with love and proper training.  There are certainly countless pit bulls that have never exhibited improper, unprovoked aggression.

            Another problem with the ordinance is the manner in which dogs falling under the classification of “violent” or “dangerous” must be kept.  The ordinance incorporates a “grandfather” clause which, to some extent, exempts currently present pit bulls or “dangerous” dogs from the ban.  However, these dogs must be registered with the city, and are subject to strict requirements.  For instance, these dogs must be either kept indoors or must be held in pens or structures outside.  A regular fence will not do.  The ordinance specifically requires the structure to have a roof or other secure top, and either a secure bottom or sides that extend at least two feet into the ground.  The door must lock with either a key or combination lock.  The owner must place a sign on the property stating “Beware of Dog.”  The city must be provided with color photographs of the dog and any puppies born of such a dog must be removed from the city, within six weeks of birth.  Remember, these are not requirements for a dog that has bitten or attacked someone.  These are requirements for any pit bull. 

            Most people would agree that keeping residents of Clay safe from a dangerous dog is extremely important.  It’s an issue that needs to be addressed, and laws aimed at effectively accomplishing this should be enacted.  Most cities have “leash law” ordinances which require dogs to be on leashes when not secured inside a house or fence.  These are generally good laws, wisely aimed at protecting the citizens from wandering dogs.  Opponents of this particular ordinance, as adopted by Clay, argue that it fails to accomplish this same interest as narrowly as it could. 

            Clay city attorney Alan Summers has presented some alternatives, the most important of which is to remove the breed-specific language from the ordinance.  Such a change would effectively limit the ban to “dangerous” or “vicious” dogs only, with some guidance on establishing whether a particular dog fits the bill.  

Do You Really Have a Right to Remain Silent?

            

            Anyone who has watched an episode of Law & Order, NYPD Blue, or Miami Vice has heard those famous words: “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law....”  As you may know, it’s known as “Mirandizing” a suspect, a term coined from the Supreme Court case that ruled that police are required to make these and other disclosures prior to “custodial interrogation.” 

            Most attorneys, if given the chance, would advise their client to do just that – remain silent.  Little good can come from running your mouth in a situation where the police have already decided that you’re their man (or woman, just to be fair).  You’re probably not going to talk your way out of the mess, at least not right then.  So both practically and legally speaking, the prudent thing to do is to remain silent. 

            But what if your silence could be used against you to demonstrate your guilt to the jury later on?  In a case before the Supreme Court, prosecutors in Texas had successfully used a defendant’s silence to help prove him guilty of murder to a jury.  The trial court judge had allowed the prosecution to argue that by remaining silent in response to questions by police, the defendant basically admitted his guilt.  This particular defendant had been freely talking to police until the officer asked him if certain shell casings were going to match a rifle that he had.  It seems that the defendant then realized the possibility of a ballistics match for the first time and also realized he may be in trouble after all.  So he did exactly what he thought he had the right to do – remain silent.  Importantly, he had not yet been arrested, and therefore had not been advised of his rights (Mirandized), nor were the police obligated to Mirandize him at that point. 

But the issue in front of the Supreme Court is whether or not that right to remain silent extends to the time prior to the arrest.  Some of the comments of the individual Justices indicate that there is a possibility that the Court may determine that your pre-arrest silence can be used against you to prove guilt.  Is it good policy (or even Constitutional) for the police to be able to question you prior to arrest, and then be allowed to use either your answers or your silence against you in court?  It seems that such a ruling by the Court would place future suspects in a Catch-22.  Either talk to the police and risk incriminating yourself, or don’t talk to police…and risk incriminating yourself.  

Soft Drink Ban Tossed Out by New York Court

            If you have travel plans to New York City coming up, good news!  It appears that you will still be able to buy a large soft drink while eating out.  Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration had famously banned “sugary” drinks larger than 16 ounces from being served in restaurants, street vendors, and other venues within the city.  With 20 oz or larger drinks being the norm for most restaurants, this was setting up to be a major problem for consumers and businesses.  However, the state court declared that such a ban on large drinks was “arbitrary and capricious” and ruled that the city was permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the regulation on drink sizes. 

            The bottom line is, the judge reasoned that, along with this regulation being difficult to uniformly enforce, the administration’s unelected Board of Health was tasked with issuing regulations to help deal with the imminent threat of disease – and that soft drinks, and the effects they can have on health, didn’t fit the bill.  And as soft drink loving citizens all over the country have been arguing since this foolishness came to light, if such a ridiculous regulation is to be the law, it at least should come from the legislature…so that the will of the people has at least a chance of being considered.  And maybe so that the lawmakers can be voted out in the next election.  

Drunk Driving in Sweden

          Is it possible to use a high tolerance for alcohol as a defense to a drunk driving charge?  A defendant in a Swedish criminal court did just that.  He apparently is in the habit of drinking "six small snapps" of beer and an additional amount of traditional mulled Swedish wine (called glogg) every day before work.  He was eventually pulled over for it and, as you would expect, his blood-alcohol content (BAC) was 5 times the legal limit in Sweden.  He was arrested and charged with a form of aggravated drunk driving.  

          In his trial, he used as his defense the fact that he was such a heavy drinker that he had developed an extremely high tolerance for alcohol and was therefore not inebriated or impaired.  The judge apparently agreed and dismissed the charge against him, setting him free.  I wonder if he drank six more small snapps of beer as celebration that night....

          So could a similar defense work in Alabama?  The short answer is, probably not.  Alabama DUI law sets forth five statutory methods to be charged with DUI, and they are found in Ala. Code section 32-5A-191(a)(1) through (a)(5).  The first two deal with alcohol related impairment, while the last three deal with other substances used alone or in conjunction with alcohol.  We'll focus on the alcohol-related ones here.  (a)(1) prohibits being in physical control of a vehicle with 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the bloodstream.  (a)(2) generically prohibits being in physical control of a vehicle while "under the influence of alcohol."  In theory, one could argue to a judge that "six small snapps" of beer and an additional amount of traditional mulled Swedish wine does not cause you to be "under the influence of alcohol" however it may be tougher to get past that per se limit of the 0.08 percent limit found in (a)(1).  For the most part, if your BAC is 0.08 or above, it's tough to win your case on the argument of how much you have consumed, and your attorney is better off attacking the procedures the police used leading up to the blood alcohol test.  

Want My Blood? Come Back With a Warrant!

         
           Does the 4^th Amendment protect citizens suspected of driving under the influence from having a blood sample taken without consent and without a warrant?  In case you missed that day in your high school Civics course, the 4^th Amendment generally protects citizens against unlawful searches and seizures.  That means that in order for the police to conduct a search or seize property, the individual must either provide consent, or a judge must issue a warrant based on probable cause.  There are many exceptions to the rule (a search incident to an arrest, plain view searches, emergency – or exigent – circumstances, etc.) but for the most part, without prior consent or a warrant, the police are prohibited from conducting a search or seizure of property. 

In the past, blood has been treated as the property of an individual for 4^th Amendment purposes, and therefore a warrantless sampling (or seizure) of that blood would be unlawful, and therefore inadmissible in court.  However, the Supreme Court is taking a look at a case where a Missouri police officer ordered a hospital lab technician to take a sample of blood from a DUI suspect, even though the suspect had refused to volunteer the sample.  No warrant was ever granted, nor even applied for.   As you may have anticipated, the suspect’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) was well over the legal limit and the prosecution intended to use the BAC result in the trial.  The defense filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, citing an unconstitutional search/seizure.  The government argued that the rate of dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream required a quick sample, and was therefore an emergency situation.  The Supreme Court must now determine whether the results are admissible, given the nature in which they were obtained.

Comments from the oral arguments, which occurred today, suggest that a majority of the Justices are skeptical of the constitutionality of a warrantless blood sample.  Both conservative and liberal Justices grilled the attorney for the state about the intrusiveness of needles, and the ease at which a warrant could have been obtained if the officer had just picked up the phone.  From reading the transcripts of the statements made by the Justices, it appears that most, if not all, are uncomfortable with the 4^th Amendment being trumped by the convenience of law enforcement.  Of course, as demonstrated last year, until the formal opinion is issued, comments and questions by the Justices should be taken with a grain of salt.