ILNews

Man’s barking dogs did not violate noise ordinance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis man will be able to keep all four of his dogs after the Indiana Court of Appeals found that complaints by just one neighbor about barking didn’t support finding he violated a local noise ordinance. The trial judge had ordered he get rid of two of his dogs.

Wayne Brandt and his mother Betty Wilson have four dachshunds and live two lots down from Marilyn Annette Moore. Moore, who would frequently call the authorities to complain about her neighbors or activities in the neighborhood, kept a log of the barking by the four dogs. She called on more than one occasion about the dogs’ barking interfering with her ability to enjoy her property.

A bench trial was held on whether Brant violated Section 531-204(a) of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, which says “It shall be unlawful for a person to own or keep any animal which by frequent or habitual howling, yelping, barking, screeching, other vocalization or otherwise shall cause serious annoyance or disturbance to persons in the vicinity.”

Moore was the only neighbor to make complaints or testify negatively about the dogs. Other neighbors said the barking did not bother them. The trial court found against Brant and ordered, per the mandatory provisions of Section 531-728 of the Revised Code, that he is limited to own two dogs and that they be spayed or neutered.

In Wayne Brant v. City of Indianapolis, 49A05-1201-OV-12, the Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the plain, ordinary usual meaning of the term “persons” as used in the ordinance means that just one neighbor’s complaints are insufficient.

The appellate court also addressed the city’s contention that the interpretation of “persons” to mean more than one person would run afoul of the guarantee of equal protection under the 14th Amendment because this interpretation would ignore the household of a single owner. But the City-County Council may not have wished to invoke its civil penalty authority for a noise ordinance unless multiple citizens were negatively impacted, such that the noise constituted a public, rather than private, nuisance, Judge John Baker wrote.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT