Dog unlicensed? Washtenaw County may switch to civil infraction fines for minor violations
Conversations regarding Washtenaw County’s animal control policy have brought a long-discussed civil infraction ordinance back to the forefront for county government.
Supporters see civil fines as a better way to punish minor offenses — such as unlicensed dogs or violating soil erosion codes at construction sites — than pursuing misdemeanor rulings in court.
The city of Ann Arbor and the county have their own civil infractions ordinances covering things like tickets given for driving with a tail light that’s out. But when it comes to some Washtenaw County ordinances, punishments for minor violations often lead to court proceedings.
Take not getting a license for your dog in most of Washtenaw County. Should you be found in violation, it's a misdemeanor offense.
"There seems to be a cultural reluctance to put someone at risk of jail time over such a minor offense," said Conan Smith, chairman of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, in an email.
The county has never enacted an ordinance to allow civil infractions to be identified and prosecuted. Should they enact one, some punishments could be resolved with a fine instead of a misdemeanor offense, which appears on a permanent record.
Civil infractions would “remove the stigma” of violating certain ordinances, said Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel for Washtenaw County, as violators would simply have to pay a fine and not be deemed a criminal.
Members of the county's animal control policy task force discussed ways to enforce dog license violations at a meeting this month, including county Treasurer Catherine McClary, Sheriff Jerry Clayton and Hedger.
A resolution concerning civil infraction ordinances will likely be on the board’s agenda this fall, Smith said.
County officials know that a large percentage of dog owners don't regularly license their pets, Smith said. For a neutered dog, licenses cost $12 for one year or $36 for a three-year license. Applications can be found online.
Making it a civil infraction for pet owners who have not licensed their dog would help the county enforce the license ordinance in a faster, more effective way, supporters say.
McClary said there’s a misconception about the purpose for dog licenses and associated fees.
“People believe that the only reason people need to license their dog is so government can make money,” McClary said, adding that the county does not make a profit off of dog license fees.
McClary said dog licenses are a way to help lost dogs find their way home and to indicate whether the animal has had its rabies shot -- a key public health issue.
The county is also responsible for holding unlicensed dogs for four business days as a result of the Dog Law of 1919, despite lacking a revenue stream to cover those costs. Smith said that any additional, increased revenues from dog licenses could help offset the cost of housing unlicensed dogs.
McClary has said she wants to perform a dog census in 2013 to see how many dog owners are licensing their pets.
Municipalities that have passed their own ordinances concerning dog licensing — Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township — would be separate from any action the county may take.
Animal control isn't the only area where officials are interested in implementing a countywide civil infractions ordinance.
Dick Fleece, deputy director for Washtenaw County Public Health, said the civil infractions ordinance is something that’s been discussed for the past decade.
“It allows civil fines instead of going after someone with a criminal violation punishable by time in jail,” Fleece said.
Because the department also oversees the building inspections department, civil fines could easily be used to confront violations to construction codes instead of court time, Fleece said.
For the water resources department, enforcing soil erosion ordinances on construction sites is also something that could fall under a civil fine.
Enforcing ordinance violations with civil infractions would still require some court time, as individuals would still be able to contest citations through the 14-A District Court.
The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners would have to approve a resolution allowing civil infractions. Individual county departments would then be able to determine which of its ordinances should be amended to change certain penalties from misdemeanors to civil infractions.
Amy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at (734) 623-2552, amybiolchini@annarbor.com or on Twitter.
Comments
shazamm
Wed, Aug 29, 2012 : 12:17 a.m.
instead of going after loose dogs that need a licence.....isnt it time to go after the loose women that parade up and down East Michigan Ave? I stopped for gas at the new Speedway last week at 5 am on my way to work and 3 diffrent women wanted to know if I wanted to "have a good time" Thsi is one sad city and township lately.................leave the dogs be..............fine the hookers bigtime!!!!!!!!!!
Judy
Tue, Aug 28, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.
I agree "I have never licensed a dog. In my case, it is because there is zero enforcement (low risk)". My dogs and cats are up to date with their shots. My question is, if it is not about "Money" than what would Washtenaw County do if every dog owner did licensed their dog at $12 each? As far as cats go I agree they too should be licensed. I think better plan than making owners license dogs and cats is for the Washtenaw County to offer "FREE" clinics to get them neutered and shots, than if a dog or cat are running loose without shots or has litter puppies or kittens give them at ticket. Problem solved!
TAG
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 5:03 p.m.
Not getting a doc licensed in Washtenaw county is currently a criminal offence? We seem to be an incredibly punishment oriented society.
RunsWithScissors
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.
@Murf Yes! If the dog license fee is paid (optional, of course) at the animal hospital then many more people would participate. It's tricky, though, to tie private enterprise to gov't services. I'll have to ask my vet about that - whether it's a good idea AND feasible. But mostly I would like to follow the money: where do dog licensing fees go? If the fees are supporting animal control services then it makes sense to pay a fee. The city says there's is no profit from collecting the fees. I should hope not. City & county governments are non-profit entities. McClary says, "....dog licenses are a way to help lost dogs find their way home and to indicate whether the animal has had its rabies shot —Â a key public health issue. " How? ID tags help lost dogs find their way home & rabies vaccination tags indicate whether the dog has been vaccinated. If the dog is tag- or collar-less then licensing is not going to help with either situation. Will dogs be required to carry & show papers proving they've been vaccinated? I'm all for paying fees when the money trail is easy to follow and the argument for paying fees is substantiated by solid evidence. I haven't seen much of that in this article nor in Ryan's article. If the city & county can put some sense and ease into dog licensing then the issue of civil infraction v.s. misdemeanor becomes moot.
Domey
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.
You ask if dogs will be required to carry and show papers. We will all have to carry and show papers soon enough.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.
So, you're asking for accountability and transparency from government? You must be new here.
Murf
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.
Great comment! Following the money would be interesting especially after the recent debate regarding the county renewing their contract with HSHV for animal control and also how the cities that have their own licensing procedures work with all of that.
Murf
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 2:41 p.m.
If only the City of Ypsilanti would have a nice online application as the county does. I gave up licensing my dog because it was so convoluted and archaic when it comes to trying to get to their office during the business hours not to mention the furlough days when they aren't open and not having any way of doing it online and attaching a copy of the rabies certificate (i.e., 21st century) and also the fact that the license ends on December 31 of every year. I'd love to see a 3 year option like the county offers. There should be some sort of licensing in conjunction with the rabies certificate at the vet's office that can be done when the rabies shots are done. I'd be happy to pay that fee (whatever it is...tried looking at the City of Ypsilanti's website without much luck on what the fee is currently) in with my vet visit bill. I bet if they made it that easy, more people would do it.
Murf
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.
Excellent point, pseudo!
pseudo
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.
I dunno Murph, why even have that extra and useless layer at all? It does't do anything. Even in those easy-to-use places compliance is very very low and the reason is a that it doesn't effectively do anything but gather money for the municipality. If it were all that important, we'd have liscening requirements for every pet. Veterinarians are liscensed through the state . They are properly trained and have required reporting for disease. They also have a certificate number they report on for rabies vaccinations. That is what counts. When a dog bites, its the vet records and certificates that get checked, not the liscense (except to penalize the owner for not liscening the dog). Dog bites and dog attacks are handled through dangerous animal ordinances, civil laws. Also not through dog liscensing. I say, don't spend the money on it. Use the dangerous dog and kennel laws on the books - they actually do something.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:44 p.m.
Ditto. I would happily pay the fee but I can't really afford to take time off of work for this. I don't complain about the lack of a website because the city doesn't enforce the licensing requirement. If they were to start enforcing it, then I would demand that they make the process easier. I like the idea of having some kind of licensing in conjunction with the rabies certificates from the vets office. What if you could get your license right then at the same time you are getting your rabies tags?
Stan Hyne
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
This sounds like another gotcha law. Dogs, soil erosion, there must be other things that the city/county would like to get taxed/fined for the revenue.
Tesla
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:11 p.m.
Dog licenses? LOL Really? You suburbanites really need to get over yourselves.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:44 a.m.
you know, if I register my dog than my dogs home location will be in the system, the system being a computer, then the computer will upload the info to the cyborgs, and we all know dogs can detect cyborgs, which means homes with dogs would be targeted by Skynet, along with all the homeowners that have registered firearms. I'm sorry but a dog is a good insurance against cyborgs, they don't need to know where all the dogs are.
arborani
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
There are cyborg-sniffing dogs?
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:58 a.m.
Eh, sounds like the county is caving in to the Sympathy for Perpetrators crowd. -- "There seems to be a cultural reluctance to put someone at risk of jail time over such a minor offense," said Conan Smith..." Sure, that "reluctance" will turn to outrage any time a dog attack results in serious injury or death. Leniency just encourages slack attitudes toward real responsibilities. And it's only partly "cultural" - there's also a culture which promotes responsibility and competence as well as accountability. Of course, it may be more accurate to say that the county is trying to maintain its position and keep collecting money from this licensing scheme. If true, then there has be be more and better coordination to sort out who's in authority and who isn't on this and maybe other issues. Whatever: it's a mistake to underrate dogs and their owners as a potential threat to public safety. I love dogs - and most dog owners know their responsibilities but some don't. It's the ones who don't we need to be dealing with in a strict manner.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
How about that old movie about Atticus Finch?
GoNavy
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 11:14 a.m.
A dog tag has never shown to prevent a dog attack. A licensed dog is not the same thing as a harmless dog. Take a cue from the old movie "Tommie Boy": I could slap a guarantee on a POS, and all you'll have is a guaranteed POS.
justcurious
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
A census??? Oh please....spend my money on something more important.
Chase Ingersoll
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:15 a.m.
Tagg tracker gps is a sweet way to keep track of escaped pets. Only $8.00 per month. Now have my seven year old wearing one.
WalkingJoe
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
I"m hoping you mean your seven year old dog.
Dog Guy
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.
That "Only $8.00 per month" would buy a bunch of free puppies for those dog owners who do not "adopt" their pets.
a2citizen
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.
Question: If a driver hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk and that pedestrian is walking an unlicensed dog, who gets the ticket?
bunnyabbot
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:39 a.m.
does the driver have an unrestrained dog in the car?
johnnya2
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:31 a.m.
Neither would get a ticket, since they are most likely going to be misdemeanor charges for both. This sounds like you are saying that the driver would have an excuse or "out" if the walker was committing a criime. The fact is, if you are at fault and hit an UNLICENSED or UNINSURED driver, you still are at fault. Their crime has nothing to do with the one you committed and vice versa.
RunsWithScissors
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.
The link in the 1st paragraph goes to an article by Ryan Stanton dated 2/16/12. In that article, there's no discussion of dog license fees or enforcement. It's all about animal control services, the county, the city, and a $500,000 contract with HVHS. Then there's this article which is all about dog license fees, civil infractions or criminal violations. There are a fair number of city & county officials quoted but there's no specific meeting or committee from which this article could be derived. Where are these "conversations" taking place? Quote: "Making it a civil infraction for pet owners who have not licensed their dog would help the county enforce the license ordinance in a faster, more effective way, supporters say." How? You have to start enforcing the ordinance in the first place. This seems very Escheresque. If the dog license fees are used to support animal control services (which the city is obligated to provide) then why not say so? If the fees are not for that purpose, then where does the money go? Until more information is provided and dots connected, this article should be considered a rabble-rousing bit of tabloid fun.
Amy Biolchini
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
RunsWithScissors, I linked to Ryan's article because it gives background as to the position the county is in when it comes to animal control services. The county started a task force this summer to come up with a recommendation by this fall for the Board of Commissioners and the Administrator as to what level of animal control services should be provided and the funding mechanism. At one of those task force meetings in August the civil infractions ordinance issue came up. While public health and water resources department representatives were not at the meeting, their interest in a civil infractions ordinance was expressed by Curt Hedger. I contacted both departments as I was writing the story for verification and more information. This is what Conan Smith had to say on the enforcement of the dog license issue: "The civil infraction, coupled with stronger enforcement, will let residents know that we take licensing seriously and that it is in everyone's best interest -- including their pet's -- to get the annual or three-year license."
jcj
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:28 p.m.
Want to humanly deter dogs and cats? http://www.tbotech.com/dogchaser.htm $18.95
jcj
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.
This is all immaterial since there is little or no enforcement!
bunnyabbot
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:37 a.m.
jaywalk much?
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
Dogs should have collars with licenses. That way, owners can be identified if they get loose and attack anyone. There should be additional criminal penalties if an unlicensed dog attacks or chases people.
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
my point is, most people might not have a dog license but they have a tag with a phone number on it. How hard is it to call a dog to you and check their tag and make a phone call to some worried person. Do you really need to call the dog catcher to do something so simple?
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
the ratio of dogs on the loose or those that attack people is low compared to the number of dogs around town. Not that a dog attack is unimportant or condoned mind you. But dog attacks happen a lot less frequently than houses or cars being broken into. A dog on the loose that is picked up (that didn't attack) someone shouldn't be more than a civil infraction or fine. personally I have found many dogs in my neighborhood over the years that got out of their backyards or homes, they've always had a number on their collar or tag and were reunited with their families reletively quickly. I'm not going to call the city if the dog is one I can easily corral myself, but then I don't look at it as a nuisance or "not my problem", I look at it as a neighborly thing to do and humane as the dog could get hurt by me not doing what I could do to help it. If I could do something and don't because it wasn't MY job/responsibility to do it and the dog gets hit by the car what kind of person does that make me?
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.
This allows the well-heeled scofflaws, or the wealthy, to ignore the law. We already have problems with people who let their dogs run free in parks, where they disrupt nesting birds and other animals, and leave excrement behind. Seldom are the laws enforced. And now they want to water down the laws. The same can be said for allowing construction projects to break the law. It just becomes the "cost of doing business". The anticipated fines are sometimes even part of the quotes that the contractors produce for customers.
Mike
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
Well heeled scofflaws? Join an occupy movement.................
GoNavy
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 11:11 a.m.
FYI, dogs don't leave excrement behind...owners do.
Skyjockey43
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.
Yes of course because we all know that only the wealthy are scofflaws when it comes to meaningless canine licensing.
RuralMom
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.
My dogs are vaccinated and micro chipped. I don't need the county or township keep a record of it for me. If and when officers have to interact with me, they don't have access to those records, so I have to be sure I do, otherwise depending on the officer and problem, the dogs are off to quarantine. They aren't fooling ANYONE with this malarkey! They need to do something about the cats that run around freely and propagate way more frequently and will help address the feral cat problem in this county.
jcj
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
Way too many cats and dogs in this city!
Mike
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.
Is everyone enjoying all of the laws, rules, and regulations that could put you in jail? How did we ever get to this point in the USA? Sounds like something a third world dictatorship wpuld do..........
pseudo
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.
we all got here because WE didn't do our jobs along the way, thats how we got here.
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.
I love micro-management, so did the first colonists...
golfer
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 6 p.m.
ok how about cats that run loose. what is fair for dogs should be the same for cats.
NUXI
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.
Monty Python has of course taken this to the logical extreme. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw "This is a dog license with the word dog crossed out and cat written in with crayon."
Barb's Mom
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
@silly sally--Oh how silly of you. The cats that run loose around my neighborhood, sit and stare at my front window with 3 big dogs barking at them. Even when we go outside and try to shoo it away, it won't leave. Keep your cat restrained like I have to keep my dogs restrained.
Silly Sally
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:04 p.m.
What a sorry excuse of a dog that is "terrorized" by a cat walking by. Oh, how silly! Most dogs go "wof" and the cat runs away.
johnnya2
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
You do understand that a dog and cat are different? All dogs in the county are domesticated, not all cats are. A wild dog will KILL your domesticated dog. Feral cats have always been and always will be around. It would be like saying you want to rid the world of robins pooping on your car and getting them licensed.
aroo_mama
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.
I think cats should be licensed too. Our former neighbor had a cat that only did its business outside, primarily in my landscaping. Not what I care to come across when planting/maintaining my flower or veggie gardens. It also climbed the fence to go in the backyard to terrorize my (licensed) dogs on a regular basis. It would be nice if the county/city/twp actually enforced the law though.
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
My dog is fully vaccinated, cared for and micro-chipped (registered with the micro-chip company, apparently a lot of people get their dogs micro-chipped and then don't register them). Every family dog we ever had was vaccinated and cared for with regular visits to the vet. Every family dog never had a dog licensed. do they require pet birds or snakes be registered? Cats? many are "outdoor cats" which poop in neighborhood yards or harrass bird feeders are they targeted by a "license ordinance"? No? well then, bite me, I'll be keeping my $12
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:38 p.m.
For those of you talking about "knowingly disobeying the law" - just because something is a law doesn't make it right. Using, "it's the law" as justification for following something would mean that if our founding fathers thought like you - we'd never exist as a country. There is no need in today's age to license a dog with the county - outside of giving them free money.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.
I totally agree with you here. I too make sure my dog has her shots and she is microchipped and registered with the microchip company. I have never licensed a dog. In my case, it is because there is zero enforcement (low risk) and I would actually have to take time off from my job (high cost) to get the license because the City of Ypsilanti can't drag themselves into the 21st century and put the process online. I am pretty sure that none of my neighbors have licensed their dogs either. What is the point of it?
bunnyabbot
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
@HB11, yeah, because all dogs are equal to a pit bull? a registered dog won't keep it from biting someone.
WalkingJoe
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
bunnyabbot, I fully agree with on this. We have three dogs who are sweethearts. On our street there are 6-8 cats that roam the neighborhood. All of them do exactly as you stated plus they park themselves in front of windows or fences and sit there while the dogs at those houses go nuts because they can't run after them. And people complain about the dogs barking. If you complain about the cats the owners say "oh they're harmless". But if a dog get out everyone is up in arms.
TinyArtist
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:28 p.m.
If Dingell were a younger man, and Barry not as tainted, Dingell/Barry would make a great political team to lead our great nation.
Silly Sally
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : noon
Bunnybot, Oh, how silly, If you were to ask a crowd of people, say at half time at a football game if they had ever stepped in cat poop outside, no one would say "yes" Doggie doo, everyone. Cats poop in private, dogs out on public lawns. That is the difference. Oh, so silly, the one person in Michigan to have stepped in cat poop
HB11
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 11 a.m.
@bunny, my cats do NOT have dingleberries. Since you brought this "dog" to the fight and started picking on cats, why not look inside the HSHV and see how many pitbulls are there for adoption.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:35 a.m.
I'm sure we could go through all the ordinances in the city and there would be more than a few that you would knowingly ignor. potato
bunnyabbot
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 7:32 a.m.
No, its unfair to target dogs and not cats with this licensing fee, thats discrimination. Cats have dingleberries and poop in public spaces, even though a sign at the park says stoop and scoop with a picture of a dog on it. And I follow the ordinance to pick up the dogs poop, only because I don't want to subject someone to stepping in it, yet I have to dodge cat scat because someone has an outdoor cat. Cat's are the problem, if they weren't than the Humane Society wouldn't have so many 1/2 price cat days or 2 for 1 cat deal weekends running all the time. Dog vaccinations, Heartworm pills and Frontline cost way more than 50 bucks.
johnnya2
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.
So you are saying you KNOWINGLY disobey the law and think that is ok. How about not registering your car? I guess that is only a money grab too? When an UNLICENSED dog is found, what do you think happens? It goes to the humane society which PAYS people to house it (if even for a night) and they need to have the micro chip equipment so your dog can be found? Basically you are saying you are above the law, and you will only follow laws YOU deem proper. If you do not like a law, your responsibility is to CHANGE the law. The fact that you feel this outraged over $12 tells me if your vaccination was $50 you would tell your vet, well my dog never comes in contact with rabid animals. Look at it any way you want, you are an irresponsible dog owner.
jcj
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
Gesetzesbrecher
jcj
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 7:15 p.m.
Typical dog owner mentality! Only obey laws and ordinances that are convenient for you, and complain about those that ignore a different ordinance!
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 6:31 p.m.
and I kare? niet!
Mike
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
You are not being a good citizen Komrade.............
Huron74
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.
Hey McClary! If it ain't about money then reduce the fee to zero then. I guess thinks this is Ann Arbor and we're all just idiots. Oh...wait.
pseudo
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.
"McClary said dog licenses are a way to help lost dogs find their way home and to indicate whether the animal has had its rabies shot —Â a key public health issue." Oh baloney - if that were the case the county would actually have staff decided to this stuff and, frankly, the county wouldn't play games with negotiating with the worst Humane Society in the state for those services instead of the local, highly reputable one. Further, there wouldn't be such a huge gap in rabies shots for (that come with their own tag direct from the vet) and licensed compliance rates. And then the main question: can the county prove that its dog licensing rubric has done anything at all to reduce rabies, distemper, dog bites and dog attacks? No, because the licence isn't as direct as the vet tag for vaccinations and its a terrible mechanism for preventing dog bites and attacks. this is revenue enhancement, not actually providing a service to meet a societal goal.
pseudo
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
I said, just to clarify the worst in the state (that would be Garden City) and the highly reputable one (Humane Society of Huron Valley).
Silly Sally
Mon, Aug 27, 2012 : 11:54 a.m.
Which is the "worst Humane Society in the state", and the best local one?
pseudo
Sun, Aug 26, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
so to complete my thought: very few comply a) it doesn't make sense and b) there isn't that much enforcement. I see the issue between handing out fines -v- criminal court and yet, frankly, you have to prove your case in court far more than you do when its a ticket - it just shifts power structure in the equation to the ticket writer and I think the county has to decide what its priorities are and get real about those instead of making up new mechanisms to get more money with less effort.