Lawsuit targets SL officials

SPIRIT LAKE — A Spirit Lake class action lawsuit aims to prove the city's policy of issuing incremental fines for violations of its animal-related ordinances is all bark, lacking constitutional bite.

Amanda Fry-Bailey, a resident of Spirit Lake since 2009, filed a class action lawsuit Thursday in federal court seeking monetary damages from claims Spirit Lake's city code lacks a legal means for city police officers to issue the fines. Washington-based attorney Adam Karp is representing Bailey in the class action suit, which he told The Press could involve hundreds, if not thousands, of other individuals who have been issued similar violation notices.

"In my nearly 20 years of litigating civil rights cases, I have never seen a custom and practice of fining citizens without any right to appeal and, further, should they refuse to sign the ticket, to threaten them with a criminal charge," Karp told The Press. "It's rank extortion, in my opinion, and clearly unconstitutional."

Spirit Lake Police Chief Keith Hutcheson said his department does not comment on pending litigation.

For several years, according to the complaint, Spirit Lake has issued pink-colored code and ordinance violation notices for code violations. Karp writes in the complaint that the Spirit Lake Police Department’s administrative assistant explained the department's "rule of thumb" for the pink notices to him last year as follows:

"The code does not specifically state that the first violation for an animal-related offense is $25, the second is $50, and so on. 5-4-33 provides that any person found to be in violation of the code 'shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars or imprisonment.'"

According to the complaint, the administrative assistant added, traditionally, the fines double each time a notice is issued until an individual is issued a notice three times. At that point the violation is issued as a misdemeanor citation.

However, Karp writes in the complaint, contrary to the "rule of thumb" adopted by the police department, Spirit Lake’s city code does not contain any provisions that would give the department the authority to issue the notices. In addition, Karp writes the city code makes no mention of a violation fine schedule, direction to file a misdemeanor charge after the fourth offense, or any opportunity for a recipient of a notice to challenge the notice itself.

The complaint names the city of Spirit Lake, Spirit Lake Police Officer Jake Brazle, and 10 "Does" as defendants in the class action lawsuit. Karp wrote the "Does" could include current and former chiefs of police, mayors, city councilors and "those policy makers who established the illegal and unconstitutional policy described herein."

The "class" in the class action lawsuit is defined by Karp as "all persons who have received, attempted to appeal, attempted to contest, defaulted on, and/or paid any code and ordinance violation notice from the city.”

Karp's complaint goes on to detail multiple instances beginning in 2013 when Bailey, who according to court documents owns several dogs her family keeps at its Spirit Lake home as both pets and service animals, was either issued a violation notice or charged with a misdemeanor after neighbors complained about her barking dogs. When issued the violation notices, Karp writes Bailey was never informed of her right to challenge the violation.

The misdemeanor cases, which were dismissed in Kootenai County District Court, were the result of Bailey declining to accept violation notices. According to Karp, the misdemeanor citations carried the possibility of court-ordered euthanasia of her animals, fines, and potential imprisonment.

"Brazle thus gave Bailey a type of Sophie's Choice — i.e., to accept an unappealable fine or a criminal charge that the city would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," Karp wrote.

Karp wrote in the complaint that the "rule of thumb" used by Spirit Lake has caused Bailey, and other individuals who may come forward as a result of the lawsuit, to suffer "irreparable economic and noneconomic damage, irreversible and adverse declarative and injunctive harm, including violation of their constitutional rights." The conclusion of the complaint states Karp is seeking an undisclosed monetary award on behalf of Bailey and others who may come forward.