My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0017.005 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0017.005 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 11:43:54 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:12:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0017
Point
005
Author
Leslie Chow, Legislative Specialist, and Kenneth Goodenow, Legal Specialist, Legislative Research Branch, Office of the County Clerk
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Document Relationships
BIL 258 Draft 06 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
COM 0017.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Hoffmann <br /> January 3, 2007 <br /> Page Two <br /> This prohibition, which is based on language from sec. 7-2.4 of the <br /> Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, was inserted into the bill in response <br /> to public testimony that asked the council to amend the bill to allow <br /> the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the incidence of <br /> excessive animal noise. <br /> Precedent for the use of a reasonableness standard relating to noise <br /> enforcement can be found in sec. 342F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, <br /> which defines "excessive noise," in part, as sound, "which <br /> unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and <br /> property...." <br /> Consequently, while this standard may be difficult to enforce, as are <br /> most noise complaints, it is not clear that this provision is <br /> unenforceable. <br /> Further, after considerable research, it is our conclusion that it is <br /> highly unlikely that this bill would be struck down as <br /> unconstitutionally vague. Reasonableness is a standard often used and <br /> upheld as not being unconstitutionally vague. (See attached legal <br /> memo to Casey Jarman.) <br /> <br /> 2. "In addition, the bill mandates that all police officers, from the Chief on down to <br /> patrol officers, have the responsibility of seizing any unlicensed dog found running at <br /> large, then selling or killing said animal. The Police Department is strapped for <br /> personnel, and making this a mandatory function will take away from more critical <br /> enforcement activities and exacerbate the current shortage of officers." <br /> Comment: We believe that this comment refers to sec. 4-16 of the bill, relating to <br /> the seizure of dogs by "officers." This section of the bill is identical to <br /> sec. 4-20 of the current Hawaii County Code. Sec. 4-20 of the current <br /> Code was first enacted and amended in 1980, and then amended again <br /> in 1995. Consequently, this language has now been in effect for at <br /> least ten years. <br /> In the current code and the bill, the term "officer" refers to "animal <br /> control officer." This term is defined as any employee or trained <br /> volunteer of the county's animal control contractor or the Hawaii <br /> County police department. <br /> Serving the Interests of the People of Our [s/and <br /> Hawai `i County is an Egua( Opportunity Provider and Employer <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.