Ann-Marie Bortz stands alongside Levy County Animal Services Officer Lamar Sears as the dog barking case is discussed.
By Terry Witt – Spotlight Senior Reporter
County Judge James T. Browning Tuesday dismissed a longstanding civil complaint against a Levy County man accused of allowing his dogs to bark continuously and disturb his neighbors.
A granddaughter of Luis Archilla testified that Archilla has fenced the rear 2½ acres of his property to keep the dogs farther away from his neighbors and was taking the dogs inside at night.
County Judge James T. Browning addresses Luis Archilla and his granddaughter.
When the woman who filed the complaint, Ann-Marie Bortz was asked by Browning if Archilla was trying to correct the problem, and she answered, “Yes,” Browning immediately dismissed the complaint against Archilla.
Bortz said she had more to say but wasn’t given a chance to speak. Archilla must pay a $55 fine left over from a previous hearing on April 9 when he failed to appear.
Testimony from Animal Services Officer Lamar Sears a few minutes earlier indicated that even though Archilla had placed bark collars on his dogs, the dogs were continuing the bark. Sears said he wasn’t sure if the bark collars were equipped with good batteries.
After the hearing, Bortz was asked by Spotlight to estimate the percentage of improvement in the barking problem since her last court appearance. She estimated 50 percent.
Browning did not hold Archilla in contempt of court for missing his previous court date. His granddaughter explained why he missed court. Her explanation was inaudible. She wasn’t standing at the microphone. Archilla never spoke.
Bortz said she is reluctant to file a civil suit against Archilla because she doesn’t want to own his property, but she said if the barking continues she may have no choice. She said whenever Archilla’s granddaughter is present the dogs are under better control, but when she leaves the problem comes back.
Bortz said her primary aim at this point is to participate in the county’s rewriting of its animal ordinances. She said the ordinances call for small fines, which are too small to be a deterrent, and she believes the portion of the ordinance that says only neighbors living within 100 yards of each other can file complaints about excessive noise, or act as witnesses concerning from barking dogs does nothing to solve the problem. The ordinance says there must be two witnesses. Bortz said barking dogs can be heard at great distances in rural areas. She lives in a rural area off 138th Terrace. She believes more people could file complaints and find witnesses to verify their complaints if the ordinance wasn’t so restrictive.
Browning starts “dog court” each time with a statement that his intent is not to levy fines or mete out punishment but rather to find ways for neighbors to work out their differences regarding dog complaints. Bortz hasn’t been happy with Browning’s approach. She says she has been dealing with the Archilla’s barking dogs for three years and has been to court numerous times.
Browning used an opening statement to give a quick glance at how he operates in dog cases. Everyone who appeared in court Tuesday was dealing with dog issues. No one was represented by a lawyer. That’s part of the challenge for Browning. Evidence and sworn testimony is provided by people who aren’t represented by a lawyer.
“I can tell you if it involves a dog getting on someone else’s property and it is either attacking livestock, dogs or people, you can anticipate a small fine, but the primary purpose is not to fine, the primary purpose is to secure your dog so it doesn’t affect the welfare of someone else like your neighbors,” Browning said in his opening statement.
He added, “So you can anticipate that if you either don’t challenge the citation or are found guilty of the citation, I’m going to place a small fine or costs; there’s going to be dogs secured on your property by a fence or enclosed area; you’re going to have to provide proof to Animal Services that you have properly enclosed and restrained your dogs and if your dogs are off the property they (must be) on a leash or lead from someone in your family.”
Browning added that there is also a county ordinance requiring dogs to have a name tag and proof of a rabies vaccination.
In one of the other cases Browning heard Tuesday he fined David Tindall of 3rd Street Otter Creek $50 and ordered him to pay the $149.72 medical bill of Wallace Benton who was bitten twice on the leg by one of Tindall’s dogs while walking. Tindall apologized to Benton and walked over to shake his hand. Browning also required Tindall to secure his dogs and call Animal Services to confirm he has complied with the order.
Tindall testified there is a drug problem on his street. He said drug offenders living nearby have stolen from his property and trespassed on his property. He said his dogs are turned loose at night to protect his property and his family. But he said his dogs have been sprayed with a defensive chemical and they are sensitive to people getting near his property. Browning said Tindall has a right to secure his property and protect his family, “but you have to have your dogs under control.”
In the second case, Browning dismissed a complaint against Anna McHenry when neighbor Cindy Lundry testified McHenry’s dogs are no long tearing up her fence. Lundry said McHenry is being a good neighbor.
——–
Follow Up From Board of County Commission Regular Meeting May 7, 2019; Posted May 14, 2019
