Sort of. They can't rule that intent is irrelevant if it's a necessary component of a given crime, for example. They have pretty wide latitude to run their courtroom how they wish, rule on admissibility of evidence, etc. but there are a decent number of things they're bound by. The problem is that some of these can only be fought on appeal which has a host of its own issues, including cost.
Yeah, but the stuff they are bound by can be violated by them misapplying the law. There's no real discipline or corrective action other than the appeal you mentioned, but even that doesn't ensure that it won't recur, or that similar mistakes won't happen at the next level.
This happened recently as an example, there's a law that exempts dogs undergoing field training from being on a leash. There's no definition of field training in statute and the definition in the dictionary is very permissive (basically any action related to training a hunting/working dog). Under the principle of lenity, any ambiguity is supposed to be interpreted in favor of the defendant. The judge ruled that we were just playing fetch, even though we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law. The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss, and even contradictory rulings about trial de novo issues.
Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. They can violate rights, misapply law, and even yell at you or tell you they won't hear your side all with no consequences because they claim ignorance, so they're "just mistakes" that you can pay for an appeal to hopefully fix.
There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares.
There's the letter from an official agency stating that the actions we perform are complaint with the law. Also, if there's no definition/differentiation then it goes to the defendant under the legal doctrine of lenity or even reasonable doubt. Hell, you can throw entrapment in there too if you got permission/clarification from the government and they later prosecuted you for it.
You can throw in all the stuff you want about not having special equipment or a (non-existent) training license, but those facts alone would not be enough to prove guilt, especially when the majority of the people training don't have a training license nor special equipment. Remember, you're supposed to be innocent and the prosecution has the burden of proof. It seems that's not really the case when they take irrelevant facts that apply to the majority of people field training and use them to prosecute people.
I am looking really hard to see a solid defense here. I do not have it yet.
I think the law is shit, frankly.
But, all I really have here is your game of fetch should be permitted because it is part of some other training regimen.
So, what is that training and how does a game of fetch contribute to it?
Put more simply, how is your game of fetch not like any other game of fetch?
Now, you should also know I could give two shits about what you do with your dog. Probably a lot of the stuff I do with mine :D
What you are battling here is people are not so inclined to see your position as genuine. I did not, and thought it worth a go as a general exercise.
So far it has been interesting!
Your actions and framing align most strongly with what I stated earlier, depending on ambiguity to get an off leash game of fetch in the on leash park.
If I were stuck with that scenario and in need of the park, I would just make sure some meaningful and unambigious training happened, because fuck 'em. No joke. Someone, somewhere may just be wound up two clicks too tight.
Most of what you appear to be depending on falls under wide discretion however, others wound up or not, your path is clear:
Maximize their ability to defend discretion in your favor and it will land in your favor more than not.
You appear to be trading on good will as if it were entitlement. That kind of thing fails often.
Good will is not an entitlement. It can be garnered, cultivated, encouraged, but not expected or demanded.
A nod to the spirit of the laws, some charm and consideration go a loooooong way.
If you have to explain the technicality? Doomed.
All this has gotten me out of a ton of vehicle and outdoors type citations and scenarios.
I could revise my position given you can tell me either:
Something other than fetch happened in the park
, or
how your game differs from the norm, or otherwise was necessary to do in that park and contribute meaningfully to a training regimen of some kind, any articulable kind.
Otherwise a person would likely see you playing with your dog off leash.
You gotta flesh something like this out a LOT more for it to play out favorably in my experience. I am not talking about licenses or any of that either.
I am talking about giving them something solid that speaks to training. It is missing from this discussion and it absolutely should not be. I asked for it multiple times too:
I had similar discussions with others many years ago. A few tweaks in how I go about things like this did result in a dramatic shift in good will coming my way.
The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant.
Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash.
That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions.
Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).
That still leaves the question of whether your activities outside the animal conflict were anything besides fetch and how those activities contribute to some articulable training regimen.
The conflict changes the entire thing and it is relevant!
Now someone has to answer the question about why your dog is not on a leash to the other dog owner.
In my other comment, I spoke about fleshing this out some. That is what they need.
Secondly, yeah path of least resistance is to not step up for you, report the call, and go through the motions.
What incentive do they have to step up for you?
How do they sell it to the other dog owner?
After considerable, and entertaining by the way, discussion how your game is differentiated from any game of fetch remains unclear. In my view, this is likely the primary reason it went the way it did for you.
That officer needed a clear, compelling reason to step up in your favor. Did not have it.
I don't and have been looking for it, again as a general exercise.
Nothing personal here man. Just found how this played out interesting.
I said it was not an answer because it implied matters of intent and did not speak to intent directly, nor did it speak to either how your game of fetch is part of some articulable training, and or can be differentiated from any other game of fetch.
You have said, "the actions we take" meaning either you and the dog, or you and others and the dog do something that is permitted, yes?
The actions were the voice and hand commands as well as retrieving sticks and balls.
All of this is moot anyways. After being subjected to pretrial restrictions under a charge they knew to be incorrect and was amended contrary to code, the case should have been dismissed.
Ignoring the fact that obviously you've got a chip on your shoulder with regard to the judicial system, what the judge was doing makes total sense. They're trying to see if you were actually "field training" your dog or if you just wanted to play fetch. Expecting you to play fetch with a leashed dog is a whole other issue entirely.
> we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law
State laws vary but in mine, Game Wardens have identical powers to any other police officer. They have all the same arrest powers and have state-wide jurisdiction. Assuming it's the same in your state, and assuming you received some sort of citation or arrest that landed you in court in the first place, the judge at best has contradictory information from two equally relevant officers of the court. It's not exactly a slam dunk acquittal.
> The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required.
The judge wasn't trying to determine whether you were following the law, this all goes to - as earlier in the thread - intent. If you just want to play fetch with your dog, you won't have any of this. But if you come loaded to bear with a bunch of training implements, treats, balls, whistles, etc., it's hard to argue that you're just playing fetch and not actually engaged in training. Any licensure or equipment would have supported your case.
> There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss
Almost everyone who has ever appeared in front of a court has claimed their rights were violated to the point where it's practically a meme. It's almost never the case.
> Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers.
Same in my state - they're elected, and mainly hear traffic infractions, zoning disputes, and very small summary offenses. Thankfully, you can appeal to Common Pleas from a magistrate court for something like $30. But I know some states it can be hundreds for an appeal.
> They can violate rights, misapply law
I mean, there are (again, in my state) censure and impeachment proceedings for magistrates, and while not super common they do happen often enough that it's not a huge scandal or anything. Misapplication of law is exactly what the appeals process is for.
> even yell at you
My goodness!
> There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts.
Simply not true.
> We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares.
What's more likely? 1. Every police officer, attorney, and court house, as well as every politician and all the media, doesn't care about widespread systemic violations of basic rights, documented wrongdoing, and misapplication of the law. 2. You're misinformed about the law.
"Almost everyone who has ever appeared in front of a court has claimed their rights were violated to the point where it's practically a meme. It's almost never the case."
A trooper knowingly held an incorrect charge, resulting in pretrial restrictions specific to that charge. It's a violation of of both the federal and state constitution to deprive anyone of liberty or property except by the law of the land, and there's nothing in the law allowing one to knowingly hold an incorrect charge. The ADA on the case had this information too and allowed the charge to continue - a violation of the Bar's professional standards. The trooper eventually amended the charge, but lied to the judge, saying it was out of leniency when I even have an IAD report saying it was because he had an incorrect charge and knew it. But they determined it was just a "misunderstanding". Even the rules of criminal procedure prohibits the amending of the charge at that point due to the circumstances.
"Misapplication of law is exactly what the appeals process is for."
That may be, but I think it's negligence to put an unknowlegable person in a position of power like that. States have laws about those practicing law needing to have a degree and pass the Bar, yet they don't care if a judge understands basic legal terminology. How dumb does one have to be to think that a request to dismiss with prejudice is the person calling you prejudiced? This system design flaw results in delays and costs to innocent people, not to mention undermining the integrity of the system. I'm my state the filing fee for an appeal is non-refundable, so you can be "fined" just to get a trial with a real judge even if you're innocent.
"What's more likely? 1. Every police officer, attorney, and court house, as well as every politician and all the media, doesn't care about widespread systemic violations of basic rights, documented wrongdoing, and misapplication of the law. 2. You're misinformed about the law."
Considering that an investigative journalist is pitching this story to their editor, that a civil rights lawyer says we have a case but the system doesn't view it favorably unless there's a lot of money involved, and that the statutes and case law supports my interpretation, then I'm leaning towards #1 (but your choices are flawed due to the use of absolutes. It should say that the system will protect the bad members as a means of protecting itself and because they don't want to deal with issues they see to be small).
"'even yell at you'
My goodness!"
That is a violation of judicial ethics and conduct...
"'There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts.'
Simply not true."
This case seems to demonstrate a lack of accountability.
