Quincy
Posted : 4/30/2008 9:58:28 PM
UPDATE
The judge is hearing the arguments and yet did not say when he would rule, so technically the latest version of the Louisville Dog law has NOT been overturned. Even if this latest version does get overturned, the Council did earlier mention that they would start from scratch and by the book create a new ordinance that would be similar to this latest version. The only reason the earlier versions were overturned was because the Council did not notify everyone in plenty of time about an "initial meeting" and where that was to be held, in the latest version they did where this latest version I cannot see it being overturned on a "technicality related to council meetings". I hear that if the judge overturns this latest version then the attorney's office will consider taking the judge to appear before superior court judges to explain their ruleing. Yes it will be interesting to hear what the judge rules after this.
Here is the latest update from this link:-
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080430/NEWS01/804300920
Courier-Journal Louisville Kentucky
April 30, 2008
Judge hears arguments on dangerous-dog law
By Dan Klepal
A Jefferson circuit judge heard arguments yesterday over whether the current version of Louisville's dangerous-dog law should be discarded.
In February Judge Martin McDonald threw out two older versions of the law, ruling that the December 2006 version was passed after the Democratic caucus of the Louisville Metro Council met without notifying the public of a location change.
He also struck down amendments to that law, passed in April 2007, on grounds that they changed a version he had invalidated.
But the opinion did not address a revised version of the law passed by the Metro Council in December 2007 after months of public hearings and expert testimony. The city has continued to enforce that ordinance.
"Is this the same old Volkswagen with new hubcaps, or is this a brand new car?" McDonald asked attorneys at the beginning of yesterday's hour-long hearing.
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Scott Lilly said the council got it right in passing the December 2007 version.
"What the council passed in December 2007 is a complete ordinance in and of itself," Lilly said. The council "went through 97 pages and set out every provision. It stands alone and meets the criteria you set out in your order."
Attorney Jon Fleischaker, representing the Louisville Kennel Club and the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, argued that the December 2007 version, like the one passed in April 2007, amends an invalid law and should be tossed out.
Fleischaker said the council should be forced to hold new hearings on the version of the law that existed before December 2006.
"The open-meetings law is a law about process, not a law about results," Fleischaker said. "If the process isn't followed, the result is voidable. The simple fact that (the council) moved forward with legal meetings doesn't eliminate the taint.
"They need to go back and amend the law as it existed prior to December 2006."
Lilly told the judge that Fleischaker was "talking in circles."
"What the council did in December 2007 is exactly what he's asking for," Lilly said.
Donna Herzig, vice president of the Louisville Kennel Club, said she thinks the council should have to redo the law because "they didn't go through the whole thing. It's still a mess, and there are still things that were not addressed."
McDonald did not say when he would rule
.