Comments on: Collie Contraband: California Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Disclosure of All Pets of Probationers — Great and Small

By: BlogBites. Like sound bites. But without the sound. » Blog Archive » The wheels of justice have caught up to hamsters.

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:02:09 +0000

[...] wheels of justice have caught up to hamsters. Collie Contraband: California Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Disclosure of All Pets of Probationers… « This wasn’t the first time I have had to carve foreign objects out of my flesh, [...]

By: sherry

sherry — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:02:34 +0000

round up them there goldfishes!!!

tho i must admit, years ago i had 2 lovebirds. lily and herman(munster)herman was a sweetie but lily almost took my finger off once!

By: Bob, Esq.

Bob, Esq. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:10:37 +0000

JT: “The wheels of justice have caught up to hamsters.”

Have they?

Have they really?

“The Hamster Did It: PetSmart Sued Over Diseased Hamster in Wrongful Death Action”

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/09/the-hamster-did-it-petsmart-sued-over-diseased-hamster-in-wrongful-death-action/

No doubt the California Supreme Court is concerned about probationers stuffing said hamsters with explosives and thereby increasing the zone of danger.

By: Mercie

Mercie — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:34:18 +0000

Overbroad laws = potential for abuse. And when there is potential for abuse, you bet it happens.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:38:26 +0000

Vince,
I understand your comments, but this kind of step may be just the beginning in the state outlawing pets of any kind for parolees or as Prof. Turley suggested some probationer may be cited for a non-threatening pet. When it overbroad any legislation can be more restrictive than it needs to be to control the legislative issue that is the subject of the law. It may give the state too much leeway which will allow for abusive actions against the probationers.

By: Vince Treacy

Vince Treacy — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:19:58 +0000

Although the court ruling seems overly broad in its application to any and all pets, including pet rocks, I do not see how the probationer was really harmed in any way by the simple duty to give notice. While the dissent argued overbreadth, the virtue of the decision is that it is not void for vagueness. It is very clear. If it is a pet, disclose.

All the court required was disclosure of a new pet. It did not ban pets. There is nothing unreasonable about this. A landlord can reasonably require a fully law abiding tenant to disclose any new pets under a lease, so why can’t the probation officer get the same notification? The court reasonably held that the probation officer, not the probationer himself, ought to make the first call on the distinction between a combat pit bull and Peter Rabbit, and everything in between.

Anyway, that is just the first call by the probation officer, and it can always be reviewed. So what is all the fuss about?

By: Fido

Fido — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:26:02 +0000

The honorable court should heed the time-honored maxim that every dog is entitled to one bite.

“No one knows your internet is on the dog.”

By: The Internet is quiet this morning « Andy on the Road

The Internet is quiet this morning « Andy on the Road — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:08:23 +0000

[...] expect upwards of 75 on a Sunday morning. Then again, one of them did include the phrase “the wheels of justice have caught up to hamsters,” so I’m not counting it as a total [...]