| welcome! |
Edmonds is one of the few OLAs that provides a scenic and pleasant non-threatening place for
dogs and their owners. Dogs are permitted to run free, swim, meet new friends, and play.
A small group of volunteers founded the non-profit organization called Off Leash Area
Edmonds in 2005; and in 2006, the IRS determined that OLAE is exempt from Federal Income
Tax under section 501(c)3 of the Code.
Today, the dog park is maintened by volunteers. Please consider giving us your time and/or
financial support to maintain this amazing place.
Contributions to OLAE are tax deductible! Click here to donate
dogs and their owners. Dogs are permitted to run free, swim, meet new friends, and play.
A small group of volunteers founded the non-profit organization called Off Leash Area
Edmonds in 2005; and in 2006, the IRS determined that OLAE is exempt from Federal Income
Tax under section 501(c)3 of the Code.
Today, the dog park is maintened by volunteers. Please consider giving us your time and/or
financial support to maintain this amazing place.
Contributions to OLAE are tax deductible! Click here to donate
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| (c) 2013. Bailey and Banjo. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission. |
| (c) 2013. Off Leash Area Edmonds. All Rights Reserved |
| Updated: May 24, 2013 |
Welcome to Off Leash Area Edmonds (OLAE)!
5/24/2013: DOG ABUSE CASE UPDATE FROM EDMONDS' POLICE CHIEF AL COMPAAN
Recently, Edmonds was highlighted in local and national news due to a situation of dog abuse. While we know that all of you as park users, understand the importance
of proper training and care of your canine companions, we received many inquiries and actual video on our FACEBOOK page. So, we asked Edmonds’ Police Chief Al
Compaan to provide us with the details and possible action that a citizen could take if they suspect animal cruelty issues.
Here is Chief Compaan’s update: Two suspects have been charged in this case. Charges against defendant Adams consist of animal cruelty and possession of dogs in
excess of that number (five) allowed by city code; and against defendant Beutler of animal cruelty. Secondly, the dogs (fourteen of them) are still in police custody.
Ultimate disposition of the dogs will be determined by the Court. The defendants are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law and the Police Department has no
intention of turning the dogs over to anyone outside of Police Department control pending legal process of these cases. The Police Department and the City
Prosecutor's Office have literally been in daily contact with each other on this regarding aggressive prosecution of these cases. In addition to both of the defendants
having been arraigned, Ms. Adams has also been served with notice of a bonding requirement under section 5.05.124 of city code.
This requires her to secure a bond within five business days in an amount sufficient to provide for the animals care for a minimum of 60 days from when the animals
were seized. Failure to post such a bond will, in essence, cause a forfeiture of the animals to the city. In other words, the Court can find a failure to post the bond and
then can order the animals to NOT be returned to her and the animals made available for adoption.
As far as what can happen in other cases going forward, the main pieces we need to help us do our job are: 1) timely information regarding suspect(s) conduct that
constitutes violation of the law; 2) documentation of that information with signed statements; 3) video and/or audio is helpful, but we need to know who captured the
video/audio, when it was captured, and it must be done legally under the law. Single party consent to record private audio conversations is not allowed here in
Washington State. Typically, however, if a neighbor is making a video/audio recording from one’s own property of something that is occurring next door (i.e. you are
sitting on your deck and looking over to the neighbor’s property and happen to make a recording), that would very likely be acceptable under state law and would be
admissible in court. But again, we would need to be able to show the where/when and who it was making the recording for best admissibility.
Recently, Edmonds was highlighted in local and national news due to a situation of dog abuse. While we know that all of you as park users, understand the importance
of proper training and care of your canine companions, we received many inquiries and actual video on our FACEBOOK page. So, we asked Edmonds’ Police Chief Al
Compaan to provide us with the details and possible action that a citizen could take if they suspect animal cruelty issues.
Here is Chief Compaan’s update: Two suspects have been charged in this case. Charges against defendant Adams consist of animal cruelty and possession of dogs in
excess of that number (five) allowed by city code; and against defendant Beutler of animal cruelty. Secondly, the dogs (fourteen of them) are still in police custody.
Ultimate disposition of the dogs will be determined by the Court. The defendants are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law and the Police Department has no
intention of turning the dogs over to anyone outside of Police Department control pending legal process of these cases. The Police Department and the City
Prosecutor's Office have literally been in daily contact with each other on this regarding aggressive prosecution of these cases. In addition to both of the defendants
having been arraigned, Ms. Adams has also been served with notice of a bonding requirement under section 5.05.124 of city code.
This requires her to secure a bond within five business days in an amount sufficient to provide for the animals care for a minimum of 60 days from when the animals
were seized. Failure to post such a bond will, in essence, cause a forfeiture of the animals to the city. In other words, the Court can find a failure to post the bond and
then can order the animals to NOT be returned to her and the animals made available for adoption.
As far as what can happen in other cases going forward, the main pieces we need to help us do our job are: 1) timely information regarding suspect(s) conduct that
constitutes violation of the law; 2) documentation of that information with signed statements; 3) video and/or audio is helpful, but we need to know who captured the
video/audio, when it was captured, and it must be done legally under the law. Single party consent to record private audio conversations is not allowed here in
Washington State. Typically, however, if a neighbor is making a video/audio recording from one’s own property of something that is occurring next door (i.e. you are
sitting on your deck and looking over to the neighbor’s property and happen to make a recording), that would very likely be acceptable under state law and would be
admissible in court. But again, we would need to be able to show the where/when and who it was making the recording for best admissibility.