http://www.northjersey.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=6160137
Legal minds ponder the status of dog doo
CHRISTINA JOSEPH
LEONIA - Where to poop, or not to poop? That is the question fueling a court battle between two borough residents who had a run-in over doggy doo.
The dispute is the talk of the town, prompting dozens of postings on a local Web site, increased attendance at Borough Council meetings, and a sudden interest in section 95-32 of the municipal law book.
The underlying legal issue, which was far from the mind of Shiner the hound on Nov. 4 when he did his business, is whether the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the curb is public or private property.
But the issue to Shiner's owner, who faces a court hearing before the municipal judge later this month, is simpler than that.
"If he rules against me, it effectively outlaws dog walking in Leonia," said Rick Heckman.
It all started on Nov. 4 when Heckman was walking Shiner on Glenwood Avenue on the way to Wood Park. Around 8:45 a.m., Shiner picked a spot in front of William Ramos' house - on the now controversial strip of grass.
What seemed like the right spot to the hound has now turned out to be the wrong decision for his owner, who says he has spent $800 so far defending himself against charges that Shiner defecated on private property without the owner's permission.
"I had to pay $300 for a transcript, and I had to hire a lawyer for this," said Heckman during a telephone conversation this week. "It's been very stressful worrying about this."
Ramos could not be reached for comment Thursday or Friday.
But he filed a complaint that Heckman violated the Leonia code with respect to "disposal of canine waste." Specifically, Ramos cited a portion of the law stating that "permission of the owner of private property'' must be obtained before a dog is permitted to defecate there.
If Judge John DeSheplo rules that the land is indeed private property, he could fine Heckman.
No one disputes that after Shiner relieved himself on the grass that fateful day, Heckman placed the feces in a bag in compliance with another part of the law.
The dispute is over Ramos' claim that the grassy area is his property.
The municipal prosecutor and others acknowledge that there is some logic to his claim.
After all, the town mandates that he mow the spot.
But Heckman argues that most people are under the impression that the grass next to the curb, like the sidewalk, is part of the public right of way. Both are commonly used by dogs, depending on their choice of footing.
Municipal Prosecutor Mark Fierro, who sees the logic of both sides, said the case, which could be resolved at a Jan. 14 hearing, may decide once and for all what is public property.
DeSheplo ruled on Nov. 12 that there is enough evidence for the case to proceed, and he heard testimony Dec. 3.
Heckman, who said he had never met Ramos before a verbal confrontation the day of the incident, said he has received a lot of support from residents surprised that the case was still being pursued. In fact, a number of residents called the case "an assault" on dog owners and attended the Dec. 23 Borough Council meeting to plead Heckman's case.
Mayor Paul Kaufman said this week that it would be "inappropriate" for the council to take a position on the case. However, the council did authorize Borough Attorney Brian Chewcaskie to submit documents to the court regarding Glenwood Avenue, including the tax map.
"We just want to make sure we clarify it," Kaufman said.
"What this has made us do is revisit the ordinance," he said, adding that he might want to take a second look at several aspects of the law. "I've got a problem with allowing people's dogs to poop on sidewalks. It's unsanitary, and it spreads germs."
As for Glenwood Avenue, Chewcaskie said papers he sent Thursday to the court indicate that the entire width of the right of way is 60 feet. According to the tax map, the "paved portion" of the street from curb to curb is 35 feet 6 inches, which leaves an additional 12 feet 3 inches of additional right of way remaining on each side.
"It would appear the area in question is the public right of way," Chewcaskie said of the grass strip. "But that's still up for the court to decide."
