City of Hays v. Angle
| Decision Date | 08 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | 113,505 |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | City of Hays, Appellee v. Steven Angle, Appellant. |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Ellis District Court; Edward E. Bouker, judge.
Steven Angle, appellant pro se.
Curtis Brown, of Glassman, Bird, Brown & Powell, L.L.P., of Hays for appellee.
Before Malone, C.J., Leben, J., and Johnson, S.J.
It's not every day that the police in Hays, Kansas, get a complaint about a goose on the loose, but the complaint they got on May 4, 2014, wasn't the first. In fact, it was the third police complaint about the two pet geese Steven Angle had been keeping at his home. And after that May complaint-about a goose chasing a woman pushing a stroller near Angle's home-police apprehended the geese and took them into custody. Rather than declaring the geese under arrest and housing them in the local jail, the police impounded the geese and placed them with a local veterinary clinic.
The police cited Angle for violating Hays Municipal Code section 5-3(a), which prohibits keeping animals or fowl in the city if they would "normally be held in stables, sheds, pens or other places where undomesticated animals are kept." The ordinance specifically lists 12 types of animals or birds that it covers, including chickens, ducks, geese, and turkeys. But Angle claims his geese fit within an exception that allows keeping "animals and fowl which are commonly kept as household pets such as cats, hamsters, rabbits parakeets, and other comparable animals."
The case is now before us on appeal after two trials: one in municipal court and one in district court.
The municipal court held its trial in July 2014, about 2 months after the incident. Pending trial, the geese had remained at the veterinary clinic, which charged $40 per day for their care. The municipal court found Angle guilty of violating the ordinance and ordered that he pay a $50 fine, the minimum amount allowed under the municipal code for a violation of this provision. In addition, it ordered that he pay $2, 430 to the veterinary clinic; the court also provided that after Angle paid the clinic, he could give the geese a new home outside the city limits or have the police chief dispose of the geese. Angle instead exercised his right to appeal to the district court.
When a municipal court decision is appealed to the district court, it is tried there "de novo, " or anew, meaning that the first trial no longer counts and the district court hears the case independently. But the district court also convicted Angle (in February 2015). It too entered a $50 fine and ordered him to pay the ongoing veterinary bill for housing the geese before trial.
Angle then appealed to our court. On appeal to us, we do not start over-the district court hears the evidence; we review its work for legal error.
Angle makes two claims on appeal. First, he contends that the municipal ordinance is so vague that enforcing it would violate the United States Constitution. Second, he claims that the evidence against him was insufficient to show that he violated the ordinance.
We begin our review of the ordinance with its text. We set out below the key portions of section 5-3, which is entitled, "Keeping of Wild and Domestic Animals":
Under the municipal code, then, residents of Hays cannot keep "any animal or fowl" if that animal or bird is "normally held in stables, sheds, pens, or other places where undomesticated animals are kept." In addition, the code tells us specifically that "horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pigeons, [and] guineas" fit that description. Accordingly, they can't be kept within the Hays city limits.
But Angle argues that an exception in the code allows him to keep domesticated geese. After stating that undomesticated animals can't be kept, the code says that this provision "does not apply to" animals and birds that are "commonly kept as household pets, such as cats, hamsters, rabbits, parakeets, and other comparable animals, when kept as household pets and in a safe and sanitary manner." Angle contends this exception applies to his geese-or at least that it could be read to apply to them. Because it could be read that way, he contends the ordinance is too vague to be enforced.
So we turn now to the standards for determining whether a criminal statute (here, a municipal code) is unconstitutionally vague. Generally, a statute or municipal ordinance is presumed constitutional, and all doubts are resolved in favor of its validity. Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625, 629-30, 176 P.3d 938 (2008); see Robinson v. City of Wichita Employees' Retirement Bd. of Trustees, 291 Kan. 266, 272, 241 P.3d 15 (2010) (). We must interpret the statute in a way that supports its constitutionality if that interpretation can be achieved without distorting the legislature's intention for enacting the statute. State v. Richardson, 289 Kan. 118, 124, 209 P.3d 696 (2009). And we must review the statute's meaning independently, without any required deference to the district court. 289 Kan. at 124.
With these background standards in mind, courts use a two-part test to determine whether a specific statute is unconstitutionally vague. First, the statute should give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited. State v. Bollinger 302 Kan. 309, 318, 352 P.3d 1003 (2015); City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc., 298 Kan. 540, 545-46, 316 P.3d 707 (2013); Dissmeyer v. State, 292 Kan. 37, 39, 249 P.3d 444 (2011). Second, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial