CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2025)
Lily Skopp
In Lorenz v. City & Borough of Juneau, 576 P.3d 675 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025), the Court of Appeals of Alaska determined that a nuisance-barking ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as it provided adequate guidance to both pet owners and enforcement officials regarding the scope of its prohibitions. (Id. at 685). Additionally, the court found that the district court erred by refusing to consider video recordings that had not been submitted to the city before the trial. (Id. at 680). Lorenz’s neighbors lodged complaints about her two dogs, asserting that they barked frequently and for prolonged periods. (Id. at 677). Lorenz was cited under ordinance CBJ 08.45.010(a)(1), which mandates that an animal keeper prevent it from “disturbing a neighborhood . . . by frequent or protracted noise.” (Id. at 864). During the trial, the magistrate judge permitted the city to present a brief video from a neighbor but declined to accept Lorenz’s longer recordings from her Ring camera, as Lorenz had not provided these in advance, and the court faced time constraints. (Id. at 680–82). Consequently, the judge convicted Lorenz predominantly based on witness testimony and a “bark log” that had not been formally admitted as evidence. (Id. at 684). The trial court’s categorical refusal to consider Lorenz’s video evidence constituted an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 681). Lorenz had reasonably relied on prior notice indicating that she should have evidence “ready at the time of trial,” rather than requiring her to exchange it beforehand. (Id. at 682). As her videos were potentially exculpatory and central to the case, this error warranted a remand. (Id.). Moreover, the nuisance-barking ordinance was not deemed unconstitutionally vague when interpreted through a reasonable person standard; this standard stipulates that owners must prevent barking that would disturb a reasonable neighbor. (Id. at 685). An ordinance may be unconstitutionally vague if it “fails to provide fair notice of the conduct it prohibits or if it invites arbitrary or selective enforcement.” (Id. at 684). Thus, the ordinance provides sufficient notice and mitigates arbitrary enforcement. (Id. at 686). However, the trial court must clarify that it applied this objective standard. (Id.). The minor offense convictions against Lorenz were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. (Id.).
