[00:00:01]
HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT.I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
THIS IS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARINGS FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2026.
IF EVERYONE WOULD, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ALL: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
HARRISON W. POOLE: PRIOR TO PROCEEDING, I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MS PRINCE, TO EXPLAIN THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROCESSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN EFFECT FOR AT LEAST OUR FIRST TWO CASES ON THE AGENDA.
MS. PRINCE? TERESA L. PRINCE: OK THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE POOLE.
A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING BY STATE AND CASE LAW IS LESS FORMAL THAN A COURT HEARING, BUT SIMILAR IN PROCEDURES, AND EVIDENCE MATTERS AND REQUIRES THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS THE RESPONDENT, AND WITNESSES, IF ANY, TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PRESENTS THE CASE AND EVIDENCE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND/OR THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHO IS THE RESPONDENT, HAS THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
BOTH PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, CALL WITNESSES, AND QUESTION OPPOSING WITNESSES.
THE BOARD, OR IN THIS CASE, WE NOW HAVE A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IS THE FINDER OF FACT.
AND THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE EVALUATES THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE AND THEN DETERMINES IF A VIOLATION EXISTS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD AND PRESENTED AT THE HEARING.
THE ORDER OF RELIEF INCLUDES COMPLIANCE FINES, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, OR BOTH.
FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES THAT THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION, IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE BOARD, OR AT THE MEETING TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DURING THE HEARING ON THE CASE.
COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUCH EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION BEING PROPOSED.
THERE MUST BE A FACTUAL BASIS IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT OPINION TESTIMONY FROM BOTH EXPERT OR NON-EXPERT WITNESSES.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO A CODE VIOLATION, WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AS TO THE VIOLATION, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
THE ONLY MATERIAL OR RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH ADDRESSES THE CODE REQUIREMENTS OR THE STATUTE.
EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY IN THIS CASE, BUT ANY THAT ARE RECEIVED MAYBE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD AS LONG AS IT WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND MAY BECOME PART OF THE RECORD, BUT WITHOUT MORE CANNOT BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
ANY EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AT ANY TIME ON CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTERS IS A PUBLIC RECORD, BUT ARE NOT WITHOUT MORE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
IF ANY PROPERTY OWNER DESIRES TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND MAKE THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME.
I KNOW WE DO HAVE ONE RESPONDENT HERE, I BELIEVE.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TODAY? OK.
SEEING NONE, MR. MAGISTRATE, I WILL CONTINUE.
SO THE HEARING PROCEDURES, ANYONE THAT'S GOING TO TESTIFY TODAY WILL STAND AND BE SWORN.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND THE EVIDENCE AND ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION.
WE DO IMPLEMENT TIME LIMITS OF 15 MINUTES.
THE MAGISTRATE CAN EXTEND THE TIME.
THE RESPONDENT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY QUESTION THE CITY AND THE CITY'S WITNESSES, AND HAS UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO QUESTION WITNESSES.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE GIVEN TIME TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, AND MAY ALSO CALL ITS OWN WITNESSES, AND UP TO 15 MINUTES IS ALLOTTED FOR THAT.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY QUESTION ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S WITNESSES, AND THEN ALL WITNESSES WHO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION WILL ADDRESS THE MAGISTRATE, NOT THE AUDIENCE.
ANY DOCUMENTATION OR PHOTOGRAPHS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY TO MY LEFT, AND THEY'RE SITTING ON YOUR RIGHT WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL IS TESTIFYING.
THE DOCUMENTS WILL NOT BE RETURNED AS THEY DO BECOME PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD IN MINUTES.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY PROVIDE FINAL COMMENTS TO THE MAGISTRATE.
AND THEN THE MAGISTRATE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSS THE CASE AND ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, OR WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE HEARING ABOUT THE VIOLATION.
ANY MOTION OR ANY DECISION OF THIS MAGISTRATE WILL INCLUDE WHETHER THERE WAS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED TO SUPPORT THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION TO FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OR NOT.
THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED AND THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE NO APPLAUSE, OUTBURSTS, TALKING OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE AS IT COULD DISTORT THE RECORDING.
MY OFFICE REPRESENTS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
[00:05:03]
IN THE CITY IN THIS CASE, AND PROVIDES COUNSEL.WHILE THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO A COURT PROCEEDING WILL NOT BE UTILIZED, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT EVIDENCE AND MAY EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO A VIOLATION OR IS REPETITIVE IN NATURE.
THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CAN EXTEND ANY TIME.
AND IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS, PLEASE ASK THEM AT THIS TIME.
AND WE WOULD ASK EVERYONE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL CELL PHONES ARE ON TURNED OFF OR ON SILENT.
AND I WILL MAKE AN EXCEPTION IF MS. PRINCE'S REQUEST, DUE TO A FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY ARISE.
WOULD ANYONE THAT INTENDS TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY OR INTRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE DURING THIS HEARING, PLEASE STAND TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CLERK, THE OATH OF A WITNESS.
TERESA L. PRINCE: DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND/OR EVIDENCE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AND/OR PRESENT IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? ALL: YES.
AND JUST TO GIVE YOU AN ADVANCE WARNING, WHEN YOU DO GET CALLED UP TO THE PODIUM, I WILL LIKELY ASK YOU TO AFFIRM THAT YOU DID TAKE AN OATH AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING.
AND IF SOMEONE'S CHANGED THEIR MIND, DECIDE TO GIVE TESTIMONY, WE CAN HAVE THE OATH ADMINISTERED AT THAT TIME.
[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 1, 2026 MEETING.I HAVE REVIEWED THE DRAFT MINUTES.
I APPEAR TO BE APPROPRIATE ORDER TO ME.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT.
THEN MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 1 MEETING WILL BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA?
[4.1 629 MBC GROUP LLC, 629 S. 8TH ST., FERNANDINA BEACH, FL 32034, CODE CASE #CE261000179. Violation(s) of the City of Fernandina Beach Code of Ordinances exist: Section 42-42 (Nuisances) Prohibited and Section 82-464(a) Discharge of Pollutants to Stormwater Systems. Requesting Special Magistrate determination of the case.]
NO? OK.SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO OUR FIRST CASE.
THIS IS ITEM 4.1 ON THE AGENDA.
THIS IS 629 MBC GROUP LLC, PROPERTY ADDRESS 629 SOUTH 8 STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA, 32034.
I DO SEE A COUPLE OF GENTLEMEN FROM REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM.
AND IF YOU PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
ANDREW BATEY: CAN YOU HEAR ME OK? HARRISON W. POOLE: YES.
ANDREW BATEY: I'M ANDREW BATEY.
MY ADDRESS IS 629 SOUTH 8 STREET FOR MOCAMA.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED MY PERSONAL ADDRESS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.
HARRISON W. POOLE: BUSINESS ADDRESS IS SUFFICIENT.
ANDREW BATEY: AND I'M THE OWNER OF MOCAMA.
AND WILL YOU PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE SWORN BY THE CLERK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING? ANDREW BATEY: I WAS SWORN IN BY THE CLERK.
FOR THE CITY'S CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE PRESENTATION PREPARED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WHICH HAS 20 PAGES? 22.
I USUALLY COUNT THEM-- 22 PAGES, AND INCLUDES NOTICE, A PROOF OF NOTICE, AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT THE CODE VIOLATIONS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BATEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT PRESENTATION BEING MADE PART OF THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE? ANDREW BATEY: I ALWAYS OBJECT BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SEEN IT.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION WITH THIS.
AND THEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF IT, SINCE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESERVE IT, I'LL ALLOW YOU TO RENEW THAT OBJECTION AT THAT TIME.
I'M THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
SO THIS MATTER THAT IS BEFORE YOU CONCERNS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 SOUTH 8 STREET.
AND THIS IS AT A BUSINESS KNOWN AS MOCAMA.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'LL BE REFERRING TO THIS PROPERTY AS MOCAMA FOR THE SAKE OF THE PRESENTATION.
SO WE DID VERIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION ACCORDING TO NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS.
SO THE PROPERTY WAS CITED FOR 42-42 FOR CAUSING A FOUL ODOR AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT COULD BE SMELLED FROM SEVERAL PROPERTIES AWAY.
AND THE VIOLATION IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE.
AND WE ARE SEEKING A FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE VIOLATION THAT EXISTS FOR 42-42.
AND THEN THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO CITED FOR 82-464(A) DISCHARGE, POLLUTANTS INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.
THE VIOLATION IS ALSO IN COMPLIANCE.
HOWEVER, WE ARE SEEKING AN IMPOSITION OF A $500 FINE.
THIS IS THE CITY'S STORMWATER CODE FOR REFERENCE, AND WE BELIEVE THE VIOLATION DOES MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN ILLICIT DISCHARGE.
THIS IS THE STATE STORMWATER ILLICIT DISCHARGE DEFINITION,
[00:10:02]
AND WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS MEETS THE DEFINITION OF ILLICIT DISCHARGE AS WELL.ANDREW BATEY: AM I ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS YET? HARRISON W. POOLE: IN A MOMENT.
CRYSTAL RIMES: I'M GOING TO CONTINUE ON, BUT WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS.
SO CODE ENFORCEMENT DID RECEIVE A COMPLAINT FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2026, REGARDING A STRONG ODOR THAT WAS EMANATING FROM THE BACK OF MOCAMA.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE TRAILER WAS LEAKING, SPENT HOPS AND DRAINING OUT INTO THE SIDEWALK, AND THAT IT WAS CAUSING A VERY STRONG FOUL SMELL.
AND THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THAT DAY.
LET ME ACTUALLY PULL UP SOMETHING.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE WHERE THE LEACHATE IS BASICALLY LEAKING OUT HERE ONTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THERE WILL BE MORE PICTURES TO COME WITH THAT.
SAME HERE-- HARRISON W. POOLE: CRYSTAL, PLEASE-- CRYSTAL RIMES: --IT'S COMING UNDER THE GATE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: --SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT, OR MAKE SURE YOU'RE CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MICROPHONE.
IT WAS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT HARD TO HEAR.
THIS IS ALSO SOME MORE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE ON OCTOBER 14, DURING OUR INITIAL INSPECTION.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S DRAINING OUT INTO THE GRAVEL ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND IN THIS PHOTO, HERE IT COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN AND INTO THE STORM DRAIN RIGHT HERE, WHERE THAT IS WHERE IT ENTERS.
THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN ON THE FOLLOWING DAY.
THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE LIQUID, NOT SURE WHAT IT WAS, BUT THAT WAS OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING DAY.
THIS IS THE DISCHARGE PATHWAY FROM THE GIS.
THE SWELL STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. AND THEN IT GOES DOWN INTO THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, WHICH THIS LEADS OUT TO THE AMELIA RIVER.
THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON NOVEMBER 04, AND IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE.
WE DID NOTICE THAT CLEANUP DID APPEAR TO HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE INITIAL INSPECTION, AND THE PREVIOUSLY NOTED ODOR, IT WAS NO LONGER PRESENT AT THIS TIME ON NOVEMBER 4.
THIS PHOTO WAS ACTUALLY FROM 2023, AND IT DEPICTS ON HOW THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE BUSINESS STORED THE SPENT HOPS IN A MANNER THAT DIDN'T ALLOW FOR LEAKING OR FOUL ODOR TO AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I DO KNOW DURING CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE OWNER AND THEN SOME OF THE MANAGERS THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVEN'T IT'S ALWAYS BEEN STORED THIS WAY WITH THE TRAILER BEING OPEN.
BUT WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN OUT THERE BEFORE, AND THIS WAS EVIDENCE THAT WAS TAKEN BY CODE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTLY.
AND IT WAS IN THESE STORAGE CONTAINERS.
AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. AGUILERA TO JUMP IN FOR A MOMENT.
SO MARCO AGUILERA, CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER.
WE DID CONTACT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR SOME SORT OF GUIDANCE ON THIS.
WE DID HAVE A DANIELLE MCKINLEY, AN ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST 3 FROM THE DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, AS WELL AS A SPECIAL AGENT, COLIN WEISKOFF.
THEY DID OBSERVE THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE BACK THERE.
IN THEIR OPINION, IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF AN ILLICIT DISCHARGE BY THE STATE'S CODE OR STATE STATUTE THAT WAS REFERENCED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION.
DANIEL ALSO BELIEVED THAT THE LIQUID, SINCE IT'S COMING FROM SPENT BREWING HOPS, THAT THOSE ARE ACTUALLY TOXIC TO DOGS.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS WHERE THE HOPS ARE FED TO COWS.
COWS HAVE A DIFFERENT DIGESTIVE SYSTEM THAN DOGS, SO THIS IS JUST A SNIPPET FROM A TRUSTED SOURCE, THE ASPCA, WHERE THEY DO-- THE ASPCA POISON CONTROL DOES LIST HOPS.
AND THEY DO SPECIFICALLY MENTION WHETHER SPENT OR NON-SPENT HOPS IN ANY FORM ARE TOXIC TO DOGS.
IT CAUSES HYPERTHERMIA AND THEY OVERHEAT AND IT IS TOXIC TO THE DOGS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, DO YOU ANTICIPATE PROVIDING ANY MORE TESTIMONY IN THIS MATTER? MARCO AGUILERA: POSSIBLY.
THEN I WAS GOING TO GIVE MR. BATEY AN OPPORTUNITY
[00:15:03]
TO ASK QUESTIONS OF YOU IF YOU'RE DONE.BUT IF YOU MIGHT TESTIFY MORE, WE CAN DO IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
MARCO AGUILERA: WE STILL JUST HAVE A COUPLE MORE SLIDES LEFT TO THE POSTING AND SERVICE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WITNESSES AS TO THE SMELL, THAT CAN TESTIFY AS TO THE SMELL.
SO ON OCTOBER 15, 2026, THE CITY DID MAIL A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE RESPONDENT, AND IT WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE PROPERTY ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THE SAME DAY.
AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS COMPLETED, PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN OF THE POSTING, AND THE RESPONDENT WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED.
SO JUST TO RECAP A LITTLE BIT, THE COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED FROM A NEIGHBOR ON OCTOBER 14, 2026.
THE INITIAL INSPECTION WAS DONE THE SAME DAY.
ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS THE 19TH FOR 42-42 AND WAS ON THE 15TH THE FOLLOWING DAY FOR THE STORMWATER PORTION.
WE DID CONDUCT A TOTAL OF FIVE INSPECTIONS.
THE CITY HAS INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TOTALING 393.
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE CITY REQUESTS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 42-42 AND FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 82-464 (A), AND FOR THIS ONE TO IMPOSE THE $500 FINE.
I MISSED A LITTLE BIT ON MY FIRST ONE.
FOR THE FIRST ONE-- TO GO BACK-- FIND THE RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF 42-42 FOR CAUSING THE EXTREMELY FOUL ODOR AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AND ENTER THIS INTO FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT THE VIOLATION DID EXIST AND ANY SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADDRESSED AS A REPEAT VIOLATION.
AND THEN WE WANT TO IMPOSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND THE AMOUNT OF 393.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND IF I MAY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, YOU ALSO HAVE WITNESSES TO CALL ON THE SMELL.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YOU SHOULD DO THAT BEFORE YOU CONCLUDE YOUR EVIDENCE.
MARCO AGUILERA: AT WHAT POINT, CAN I ASK QUESTIONS? HARRISON W. POOLE: WELL, IF MS. RIMES IS DONE TESTIFYING, THEN I WOULD SAY TO GO AHEAD AND ALLOW QUESTIONS.
NOW I THINK THAT-- TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THEN WE'LL PRESENT THE WITNESSES AND THEN HE CAN QUESTION THE WITNESSES.
HARRISON W. POOLE: BUT HAVING SEEN THE PRESENTATION, DO YOU STILL OBJECT TO IT BEING MADE PART OF THE RECORD? ANDREW BATEY: NO.
IT'LL BE RECEIVED WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AND YOU ARE FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF OFFICER RIMES.
OFFICER , DID YOU TEST THE LIQUID? CRYSTAL RIMES: I DID NOT TEST IT.
ANDREW BATEY: OFFICER RIMES, DID IT NOT RAIN, A VERY LARGE AMOUNT, IN WHICH CASE ALL OF JACKSONVILLE WAS FLOODED THE DAY BEFORE? CRYSTAL RIMES: I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
ANDREW BATEY: WERE YOU AWARE OF THE WEEK-LONG STORMS THAT WE HAD? CRYSTAL RIMES: NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
ANDREW BATEY: CAN YOU TELL ME THAT THAT WAS RAINWATER OR ACTUAL WATER FROM OUR TRAILER WITH CERTAINTY? MARCO AGUILERA: CAN I SAY SOMETHING TO THAT? ANDREW BATEY: NO.
HARRISON W. POOLE: NO, SHE'S TESTIFYING NOW.
CRYSTAL RIMES: CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? ANDREW BATEY: CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT THAT YOU CAN PROVE THAT THAT WAS NOT RAINWATER, AND THAT WAS, IN FACT, WATER FROM SUPPOSED HOPS? CAN YOU PROVE THAT? CRYSTAL RIMES: FROM MY-- ANDREW BATEY: YES OR NO? CRYSTAL RIMES: I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER YES OR NO TO YOUR QUESTION.
YOU'RE ASKING A QUESTION, IS IT ONLY CAN BE YES OR NO? HARRISON W. POOLE: ANSWER THE QUESTION TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY.
FROM MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OUT THERE, SEEING THE TRAILER LEAKING THE EXACT SAME WAY, THE EXACT SAME SMELL PREVIOUSLY, I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT THAT WAS THE EXACT SAME SITUATION THAT DAY.
ANDREW BATEY: I'M NOT GOING TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU, BUT ALLEGEDLY WHERE WE WON THAT CASE.
I LOTS OF EVIDENCE ON THAT FRONT.
SO CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT WAS WATER OR NOT? CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT WAS RAINWATER OR NOT? CRYSTAL RIMES: NO.
IS THAT PATHWAY FOR THE STORMWATER DESIGNED TO CARRY THE WATER IN THAT FORMAT INTO THE STORM DRAIN? CRYSTAL RIMES: IN WHAT FORMAT? ANDREW BATEY: IN THE CHANNEL THAT YOU'VE SHOWN AS YOUR EVIDENCE OF WHERE WATER GOES.
IS THAT NOT WHERE THE WATER IS SUPPOSED TO GO? CRYSTAL RIMES: WATER, BUT THAT WASN'T WATER.
ANDREW BATEY: SO IT'S NOT WATER? CRYSTAL RIMES: THERE WAS SOME SMELL COMING FROM IT.
ANDREW BATEY: BUT YOU JUST CONFIRMED THAT YOU CAN'T CONFIRM WHAT IT IS.
SO IF IT STORMED-- CRYSTAL RIMES: IF IT CONFIRM IT'S WATER.
ANDREW BATEY: IF IT'S STORMED FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK AND INCLUDING THE NIGHT BEFORE, AND THEN THE WATER DRAINED WHERE THE WATER DRAINS SUPPOSED TO GO, WHERE THE CHANNEL IS DESIGNED TO BY THE CITY.
YOU'RE NOW TELLING ME THAT YOU CAN 100% WITHOUT CERTAINTY, PROVE THAT WAS NOT RAINWATER? CRYSTAL RIMES: YES.
[00:20:01]
ANDREW BATEY: I DISAGREE.WHAT CONVERSATIONS HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CALL? YOU INTRODUCED THE NEIGHBOR? CRYSTAL RIMES: YEAH, I'VE HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PHONE.
ANDREW BATEY: DID YOU ENCOURAGE HIM, DID YOU NOT APPROACH HIM AND TELL HIM THAT YOU LOST THE CASE FOR THE RAINWATER THE LAST TIME-- FOR THIS WATER ALLEGED DRAINAGE FROM THE FIRST TIME? YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU DID NOT WIN THAT CASE, CORRECT? CRYSTAL RIMES: NOT THAT I RECALL.
I DO RECALL TALKING TO HIM AND SAYING THAT IT DIDN'T GO IN OUR FAVOR.
ANDREW BATEY: WHEN HE GETS UP HERE, I WILL ASK HIM A FEW QUESTIONS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: JUST FOR A MOMENT, MR. BATEY, MS. RIMES, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ONE AT A TIME.
WE DO HAVE THIS BEING RECORDED.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND TO KEEP A CLEAR RECORD, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT MS. RIMES MAKES SURE THAT HE'S FINISHED ASKING THE QUESTION.
AND MR. BATEY, MAKE SURE THAT SHE'S FINISHED PROVIDING HER ANSWER.
ANDREW BATEY: WHEN DID THE OWNER MOVE IN? CRYSTAL RIMES: I'M NOT AWARE.
ANDREW BATEY: YOU'VE PROVIDED EVIDENCE FROM 2003 ON OTHER STORAGE DEVICES.
ARE YOU AWARE OBVIOUSLY IT LOOKED LIKE-- CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT IT LOOKED LIKE A SUNNY DAY FROM THE PICTURE YOU TOOK? CRYSTAL RIMES: YEAH, IT LOOKED LIKE A SUNNY DAY FROM THE PHOTO.
ANDREW BATEY: SO HOW DOES ONE-- CAN YOU TELL ME HOW ONE PHOTOGRAPH PROVES THAT IT DID OR DID NOT DISCHARGE ANY WATER AT ALL? MARCO AGUILERA: WHICH PHOTOGRAPH? CRYSTAL RIMES: I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
ANDREW BATEY: THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE-- CRYSTAL RIMES: I'LL GO BACK.
MARCO AGUILERA: THE PREVIOUS OWNER'S DAUGHTER? ANDREW BATEY: YES.
I WASN'T SURE WHICH PHOTOGRAPH.
ANDREW BATEY: THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ONE THAT'S TIME STAMPED OR DATE-STAMPED JANUARY 23, 2023.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT I CAN NOTICE THE SHADOWS AND THE SKY, AND THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE A VERY SUNNY DAY, CORRECT? CRYSTAL RIMES: YES.
ANDREW BATEY: COMPARED TO THE OTHER ONE WHERE IT HAD JUST RAINED.
CRYSTAL RIMES: IT WAS A SUNNY DAY THE SAME DAY WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE.
ANDREW BATEY: SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT WATER DID NOT DRAIN OUT OF THESE? CRYSTAL RIMES: I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN OUT HERE.
I WAS OUT HERE DURING THIS DAY AND THERE WASN'T ANY WATER COMING FROM IT.
ANDREW BATEY: THEY ALSO WERE EMPTY, CORRECT? CRYSTAL RIMES: GOING IN RIGHT OF WAY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TO-- ANDREW BATEY: CAN YOU ZOOM IN? I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THOSE ARE EMPTY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: I WOULD OBJECT TO THIS.
CRYSTAL RIMES: I DON'T THINK THAT THIS-- TERESA L. PRINCE: ONLY PURPOSE OF THAT PICTURE WAS TO SHOW HOW A PREVIOUS OWNER STORED IT.
IT'S NOT TO SHOW ANYTHING ELSE.
AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY RELEVANT.
ANDREW BATEY: I THINK IT'LL BE RELEVANT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO I JUST WOULD OBJECT TO THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT PICTURE WAS JUST TO SHOW HOW A PREVIOUS OWNER STORED IT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTOOD THE RESPONDENT SAYING THAT HE WAS GOING TO MOVE ON, SO I THINK IT'S MOOT NOW.
SO MR. BATEY, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
ANDREW BATEY: ARE YOU AWARE THAT HOPS ARE, IN FACT BOILED BEFORE THEY'RE DISPOSED OF? CRYSTAL RIMES: I'M NOT AWARE, NO.
ANDREW BATEY: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE PERSON THAT YOU CALLED ACTUALLY GAVE US TWO CLEARANCES AND SAID THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ALLEGED? CRYSTAL RIMES: WHO CALLED YOU? ANDREW BATEY: DANIELLE, OR WHOEVER YOU CALLED FOR THE STATE, SHE CAME IN, AND WE HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
I WILL PRESENT THAT HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.
CRYSTAL RIMES: THAT COMMUNICATION WAS TAKEN DIRECTLY WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER, MR. AGUILERA.
ANDREW BATEY: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE WOMAN THAT CAME SAID, A WOMAN CALLED AND PRESENTED THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE HOPS AND THE YEAST? TERESA L. PRINCE: AT THE TIME.
CRYSTAL RIMES: NO ANDREW BATEY: DID YOU CALL THE STATE? CRYSTAL RIMES: NO.
I'LL WAIT FOR THE NEXT WITNESS.
MS. RIMES, WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE YOU WANTED TO CALL AS A WITNESS? CRYSTAL RIMES: YES.
CRYSTAL RIMES: I'D LIKE TO CALL LIEUTENANT JOSHUA SIMMONS, BUT HE NEEDS TO GET SWORN IN.
AND THESE WITNESSES WILL SIMPLY BE TESTIFYING TO THE ODOR, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AND WHAT THEY SAW THAT DAY JUST TO HELP WITH THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS A POLLUTANT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS OPERATING SMOOTHLY, PERHAPS IF WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SIT AT THE END OF THE DAIS AND THEN THAT WAY MR. BATEY CAN REMAIN AT THE PODIUM.
SO LIEUTENANT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, FIRST, IF YOU CAN BE SWORN BY THE CLERK.
CLERK: DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND/OR EVIDENCE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AND/OR PRESENT IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT.
AND IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT UP ON THE DAIS.
TERESA L. PRINCE: DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT, THAT'S FINE.
JOSHUA SIMMONS: AGAIN, IT'S JUST-- HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT.
AND COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR OFFICIAL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
JOSHUA SIMMONS: JOSHUA SIMMONS, 1525 ONE STREET.
[00:25:01]
HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT.TERESA L. PRINCE: FOR THIS PORTION, MAGISTRATE POOLE, I WAS GOING TO DO THE QUESTIONING, AND YES? CRYSTAL RIMES: I THINK HIS MIC NEEDS TO BE TURNED ON.
TERESA L. PRINCE: I TURNED IT ON, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
OH, NO, HE DIDN'T SIT WHERE I TURNED IT ON.
WE CAN TURN THAT ONE ON EASILY.
JOSHUA SIMMONS: HIT THE BUTTON.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YEAH, JUST TEST IT AGAIN TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING IT.
JOSHUA SIMMONS: CAN YOU HEAR ME? HARRISON W. POOLE: YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AGAIN, FOR THIS PORTION, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE EVIDENCE WE NEED.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
THE DATE IN QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION, AND I WILL HAVE TO-- WHAT WAS THE DATE? MARCO AGUILERA: IT WAS THE 14TH? TERESA L. PRINCE: YES, OF OCTOBER.
SO WERE YOU AT MOCAMA ON OCTOBER 14, THE DAY OF THIS VIOLATION? JOSHUA SIMMONS: YES TERESA L. PRINCE: OK.
AND ON THAT DAY, WERE YOU ASKED TO GO OUTSIDE AND LOOK AND TEST AND NOTICE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING DRAINING IN THE STREET OR IF THERE WAS ANY SMELL, OR ANYTHING EMANATING FROM THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? JOSHUA SIMMONS: YES.
AND YOU WERE ASKED BY ONE OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS? JOSHUA SIMMONS: YES.
AND DID YOU GO OUTSIDE? JOSHUA SIMMONS: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND PROCEED TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? JOSHUA SIMMONS: YES.
AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SMELL? JOSHUA SIMMONS: IT'S A STRONG SMELL.
TERESA L. PRINCE: DID IT SMELL LIKE WATER? JOSHUA SIMMONS: NO, IT SMELLED SO BAD.
TERESA L. PRINCE: IN YOUR OPINION, I MEAN, HOW CLOSE DID YOU STAND TO BE ABLE TO SMELL IT? JOSHUA SIMMONS: I WAS RIGHT AROUND WHAT THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO THE PICTURE THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN IS JUST SHOWING A PUDDLE, SO LIKE ON THE STREET? JOSHUA SIMMONS: I WAS IN THE AREA.
WE'RE DOING A-- PRETTY MUCH WE'RE DOING SOMETHING THERE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: BACK IN THE PROPERTY.
ANDREW BATEY: MY TURN? TERESA L. PRINCE: YEAH, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ANDREW BATEY: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
ANDREW BATEY: WHEN YOU WERE WALKING THROUGH, WE WERE PRIMARILY ON THE SIDEWALK OR IN OUR PROPERTY, CORRECT? JOSHUA SIMMONS: YES.
ANDREW BATEY: AND ARE YOU AN EXPERT IN SMELLS? JOSHUA SIMMONS: NO.
ANDREW BATEY: AND CAN YOU 100% LIKE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, SAY IT WASN'T SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE COULD IT HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY THE MILL OR OTHER SMELLS? JOSHUA SIMMONS: IT WAS A STRONG SMELL, A STRONG BAD SMELL RIGHT THERE.
ANDREW BATEY: BUT DO YOU KNOW THE EXACT SOURCE? ARE YOU AN APPROVED-- JOSHUA SIMMONS: NO, I KNOW THE BAD SMELL IN THAT AREA.
TERESA L. PRINCE: I WOULD JUST ASK ONE REDIRECT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
IN YOUR OPINION, I MEAN, DO YOU THINK IT WAS THE MILL? JOSHUA SIMMONS: NO.
AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT WAS THE AREA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH? JOSHUA SIMMONS: BECAUSE THE CLOSER I GOT TO IT, THE STRONGER IT GOT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ANY FOLLOW-UP, MR. BATEY, FROM THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING? ANDREW BATEY: NO, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT YOU AGREE, YOU'RE NOT A SMELL EXPERT.
ANDREW BATEY: YEAH, THANK YOU.
CRYSTAL RIMES: SO NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL MS. PATRICIA HAAS.
SHE IS THE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
HARRISON W. POOLE: GOOD AFTERNOON, MS. HAAS.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR OFFICIAL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
PATRICIA HAAS.: PATRICIA HAAS, 204 ASH STREET.
AND WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY SWORN BY THE CLERK? PATRICIA HAAS.: I WAS.
AGAIN, WERE YOU PRESENT AT MOCAMA ON OCTOBER 14, WHEN THIS VIOLATION WAS ALLEGED? PATRICIA HAAS.: I WAS THERE THE 15TH.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO THE DAY AFTER THE VIOLATION.
AND THE DAY THAT YOU WENT TO THE PROPERTY, DID YOU SMELL ANY ODOR? PATRICIA HAAS.: I DID.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND DID THE ODOR APPEAR TO BE WATER, OR I MEAN, DID IT SMELL LIKE WATER? OR DID IT HAVE ANY SMELL THAT YOU RECOGNIZED TO BE WATER? I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION-- ASK THAT QUESTION.
PATRICIA HAAS.: DID NOT SMELL LIKE WATER.
THERE WAS A STRONG, PUTRID ODOR IN THE AREA.
AND WERE YOU AT THE-- WHERE WERE YOU LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU SMELLED IT? PATRICIA HAAS.: I WENT FROM THE STORM DRAIN TO APPROXIMATELY THAT AREA WHERE THERE DUMPSTER OPENS ON THE STREET.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND DID YOU NOTICE THE ODOR AND SMELL THE ODOR FROM THE STORM DRAIN UP TO THE AREA OF HIS PROPERTY WHERE YOU HAD TO STOP? PATRICIA HAAS.: YES, I DID.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WHICH WOULD BE THAT WAS THE AREA WHERE YOU STOPPED THAT FENCE IN THE PICTURE? PATRICIA HAAS.: APPROXIMATELY.
AND DID THE ODOR GET STRONGER OR WEAKER AS YOU PROCEEDED TOWARDS THE OWNER'S PROPERTY
[00:30:02]
AND TOWARDS THAT FENCE? PATRICIA HAAS.: IT GOT STRONGER.TERESA L. PRINCE: AND DID YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER SOURCE OF THAT ODOR THAN THE SUBSTANCE ON THE GROUND? PATRICIA HAAS.: I DID NOT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND AGAIN, WHAT IS YOUR WORK WITH THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH? PATRICIA HAAS.: I AM THE NEW ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION COORDINATOR.
ANDREW BATEY: THEY KEEP BRINGING UP THE WATER, WHICH HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN-- WELL, I THINK WE WON THE LAST CASE, BUT LET'S GO WITH THAT.
CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT WAS RAINWATER OR NOT? PATRICIA HAAS.: I DIDN'T TAKE ANY CONCLUSIVE TESTS.
ANDREW BATEY: YOU DID NOT TEST THE WATER? PATRICIA HAAS.: THAT IT WAS WATER.
ANDREW BATEY: DO YOU REMEMBER IF IT STORMED THE NIGHT BEFORE? PATRICIA HAAS.: I DO NOT RECALL.
ANDREW BATEY: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT HAD IT STORMED THAT THAT COULD BE RAINWATER THAT WAS GOING THROUGH OUR FACILITY, DOWN THE CHANNEL THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR INTO THE STORM DRAIN? PATRICIA HAAS.: I COULD NOT SAY.
ANDREW BATEY: YOU COULD NOT SAY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ANY REDIRECT? TERESA L. PRINCE: NO.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THANK YOU, MS. HAAS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ANY FURTHER WITNESSES FOR THE CITY? CRYSTAL RIMES: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUR FIRE CHIEF.
CHIEF HOLMES, UP TO THE STAND, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHIEF? JEREMY HOLMES: AFTERNOON.
HARRISON W. POOLE: COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR PROFESSIONAL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
JEREMY HOLMES: JEREMY HOLMES, 516, SOUTH 10TH STREET.
AND WERE YOU SWORN BY THE CLERK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING? JEREMY HOLMES: YES, SIR.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU, CHIEF HOLMES, FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WERE YOU ON THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 15, WHEN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS GIVEN? JEREMY HOLMES: YES, MA'AM.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WHY WERE YOU ON THE PROPERTY THAT DAY? JEREMY HOLMES: WE WERE DOING A WALKTHROUGH FOR THE CONCERT.
THEY WERE HAVING-- SO WE WERE DOING SETTING UP ALL OF OUR PLANS AND WHATNOT FOR THE AREA.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND HAD YOU NOTICED ANY ODOR FROM THAT FACILITY, FROM THE RESTAURANT, FROM THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CODE ENFORCEMENT ASKING YOU TO GO OUT AND EXAMINE THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, JUST ON YOUR OWN BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION? JEREMY HOLMES: SURE.
NOW, I WAS NOT ASKED TO GO BACK THERE AND CHECK IT THOUGH.
BUT I DID NOTICE THE SMELL, AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO YOU DID NOT GO TO THE-- DID YOU GO TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING? JEREMY HOLMES: YES, MA'AM.
WHEN WE MET AND WE WERE TALKING AS A GROUP, IT WAS IN THE REAR ON THE PARKING LOT SIDE.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW-- WHAT WOULD THAT BE THE NORTH SIDE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND FROM THAT LOCATION, YOU WERE ABLE TO SMELL AN ODOR? JEREMY HOLMES: YES, MA'AM.
TERESA L. PRINCE: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE ODOR? JEREMY HOLMES: IT JUST SMELLED BAD.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A FIRE CHIEF, DO YOU HAVE ANY TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE WITH IDENTIFYING ODORS? JEREMY HOLMES: NO, MA'AM.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, DID CODE ENFORCEMENT ASK YOU TO GO AND LOOK AT IT OR SEE IF THE SMELL WAS STRONGER IN THE BACK OR DO ANYTHING TO ASK YOU TO LOOK INTO IT? JEREMY HOLMES: I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.
I DON'T THINK-- I DON'T THINK SO.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO IT WAS JUST YOU WERE THERE ON THE PROPERTY, AND YOU NOTICED THE SMELL ON YOUR OWN? JEREMY HOLMES: YES, MA'AM.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BATEY? ANDREW BATEY: DID WE NOT WALK-- YOU'VE TESTIFIED OR WHATEVER THAT YOU WERE IN THE PARKING LOT.
BUT DID WE, IN FACT, WALK TO THE ENTIRE LENGTH NEXT TO THE FENCE AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING? JEREMY HOLMES: I DID NOT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DID AS A GROUP.
I WAS A LITTLE BIT LATE GETTING THERE, SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU DID THAT AS A GROUP, BUT I DID NOT.
ANDREW BATEY: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN GOING TO MOCAMA AS A CUSTOMER? JEREMY HOLMES: SINCE I MOVED HERE.
ANDREW BATEY: WHICH YEAR WAS THAT? JEREMY HOLMES: IT WAS LAST YEAR, MAY.
ANDREW BATEY: MAY? JEREMY HOLMES: YES, SIR.
ANDREW BATEY: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HAVE YOU SEEN US DISCHARGING OR CAUSING ANY PROBLEMS PREVIOUSLY? OR DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IN SMELL, I SHOULD SAY, BETWEEN THE TRAILER THEY'VE ALLEGED AND THE BINS THAT WERE THERE, OR IS THE SMELL BEEN CONSISTENT? JEREMY HOLMES: IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I HAD NOT SMELLED BACK THERE.
I JUST REMEMBER SMELLING IT THAT DAY.
ANDREW BATEY: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HAVE YOU WORKED WITH BREWERIES IN THE PAST OR ANYTHING WITH BREWERIES IN THE PAST? JEREMY HOLMES: I'M SO SORRY TO SAY THAT.
ANDREW BATEY: HAVE YOU WORKED OR DONE ANYTHING CODE ENFORCEMENT RELATED WITH BREWERIES IN THE PAST? JEREMY HOLMES: NO, SIR.
ANDREW BATEY: AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT MOST OF THE TIME HOPS ARE BOILED BEFORE THEY'RE DISCHARGED? JEREMY HOLMES: NO, SIR.
UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING FURTHER.
TERESA L. PRINCE: NO REDIRECT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE WE CLOSE.
[00:35:01]
HARRISON W. POOLE: OK.WERE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES? TERESA L. PRINCE: OH I'M SORRY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THANK YOU, CHIEF.
CRYSTAL RIMES: I'M ACTUALLY NOT 100% SURE, BUT AS MR. CHAD HORTON HERE? CHAD HORTON: YES.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE SEEN YOUR FACE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: NO QUESTION.
HARRISON W. POOLE: GOOD AFTERNOON.
COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CHAD HORTON: CHAD HORTON, 649 SOUTH 7 STREET.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND MR. HORTON, WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY SWORN BY THE CLERK? CHAD HORTON: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND FOR THE RECORD, I'M TERESA PRINCE, THE CITY ATTORNEY.
ARE YOU THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS CASE? CHAD HORTON: I AM.
SO DID YOU CONTACT CODE ENFORCEMENT? CHAD HORTON: YES.
AND WHAT WAS YOUR COMPLAINT AT THE TIME? CHAD HORTON: THE ODOR FROM BEHIND IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND DID CODE ENFORCEMENT ASK YOU TO MAKE THIS COMPLAINT? CHAD HORTON: THEY JUST INFORMED ME THAT THEIR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS THEY HAD TAKEN PREVIOUSLY CAME TO THE COURT, AND IT WAS ADJUDICATED.
HE HAD A FINE, AND THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF IT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE SMELL? CHAD HORTON: IT'S RANCID SMELL, PUTRID.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE FROM THE LOCATION? CHAD HORTON: DIRECTLY BEHIND MOCAMA.
SO RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE GATE THAT YOU'VE BEEN SEEING, THAT GATE, MY DRIVEWAY IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU SMELLED THE ODOR? CHAD HORTON: WHEN THE WIND IS BLOWING MY DIRECTION, I CAN SMELL IT IN MY BACKYARD, MY GARAGE IN THE FRONT.
CHAD HORTON: HOW ARE YOU? ANDREW BATEY: GOOD.
WE'RE NEIGHBORS, SO I'LL TRY TO BE FRIENDLY.
WHEN THE WIND IS BLOWING THE OTHER WAY, DO YOU SMELL THE MILL? CHAD HORTON: I HAVE NOT NOTICED THE SMELL OF THE MILL, HONESTLY.
ANDREW BATEY: BECAUSE I NOTICED IT A LOT.
YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE NOT SMELLED A MILL? CHAD HORTON: I GREW UP HERE.
I MIGHT BE USED TO THAT SMELL.
I DON'T DOUBT THAT MILL HAS STRONG ODOR.
ANDREW BATEY: AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT WE'VE BEEN BREWING FOR SIX YEARS, CONSISTENTLY THE SAME WAY? CHAD HORTON: I'M AWARE YOU'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, YES.
ANDREW BATEY: AND HOW LONG-- WHEN DID YOU MOVE INTO THIS HOUSE? WHEN DID THEY BUILD, AND YOU MOVE INTO THIS HOUSE? CHAD HORTON: I MOVED IN DECEMBER OF '25.
ANDREW BATEY: AND WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY A HOUSE THERE? CHAD HORTON: THERE WAS NOT.
ANDREW BATEY: IT WAS BLANK LAND.
AND THEY BUILT YOUR HOUSE, CORRECT? CHAD HORTON: CORRECT.
ANDREW BATEY: WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT'S SIMILAR TO MOVING NEXT TO AN AIRPORT AND COMPLAINING ABOUT THE AIRPLANES? TERESA L. PRINCE: OBJECTION.
CHAD HORTON: WELL, THERE'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF MY LIFE AT MY HOUSE.
ANDREW BATEY: WAS THAT NOT PART OF THE DECISION-- SORRY.
THERE'S A LOT OF TRUCKS THAT GO BY.
NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT, OF COURSE.
ANDREW BATEY: NOISE AND SMELLS.
YOU ADMIT THAT THE SMELLS, I THINK WE ALL-- WE'VE ALL SMELLED IT IN HERE.
AND YOU'RE TWO BLOCKS FROM THE MILL? CHAD HORTON: I THINK THREE OR FOUR BLOCKS.
ANDREW BATEY: AND DID MISS RIMES COME TO YOU AND APPROACH YOU WHEN YOU WERE IN YOUR YARD AND INFORM YOU OF THE ADJUDICATION OF THE LAST CASE? CHAD HORTON: I DON'T ACTUALLY RECALL IF I CALLED HER OR SHE-- I THINK I ACTUALLY I CALLED HER.
ANDREW BATEY: AND SHE CAME AND TOLD YOU THAT IT HAD FAILED AND THAT-- CORRECT? CHAD HORTON: CORRECT.
ANDREW BATEY: AND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING FOUND IN THAT WATER? CHAD HORTON: IT WAS DEEMED AS ORGANIC.
ANDREW BATEY: ORGANIC DISCHARGE.
AND DID SHE ENCOURAGE YOU TO THEN CALL AND COMPLAIN OF THE ODOR? CHAD HORTON: SHE FELT THAT IF SHE INFORMED ME THAT IF I STILL HAD AN ISSUE, THAT I WOULD HAVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT.
ANDREW BATEY: SO SHE SAID, IF YOU CALL AND COMPLAIN, THEN SHE CAN FURTHER INVESTIGATE.
CHAD HORTON: SHE SAID THEY WOULD INVESTIGATE IF I FILE A COMPLAINT.
ANDREW BATEY: AND SHE GAVE YOU A NUMBER TO CALL? CHAD HORTON: SHE TOOK MY COMPLAINT OVER THE PHONE.
CRYSTAL RIMES: IS IT OK IF I CLARIFY A FEW THINGS THAT WERE QUESTIONED? ANDREW BATEY: I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED ALREADY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE TESTIFYING.
IT WOULD BE QUESTIONING, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE MAGISTRATE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO LET'S FINISH WITH THIS WITNESS FIRST.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? TERESA L. PRINCE: NO.
CHAD HORTON: MAY I MAKE A STATEMENT? IS THAT PERMISSIBLE? ANDREW BATEY: I'M DONE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: DEPENDING ON WHAT THE WAIT TO GIVE IT, I MEAN, IT'S AN UNSOLICITED.
BUT AS AN AFFECTED PARTY WHAT STATEMENT DO YOU HAVE? CHAD HORTON: I WANT TO SAY THAT OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY ODOR.
I DON'T SEE ANY DISCHARGE COMING FROM THE PROPERTY.
I MEAN, NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT IS WHERE THE ODOR COMES FROM.
[00:40:01]
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY DISCHARGE.HARRISON W. POOLE: AND WAS THIS AN ODOR THAT YOU FREQUENTLY OBSERVED PRIOR TOO? CHAD HORTON: OH, YES.
ANDREW BATEY: WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE NOTHING DIFFERENT? CHAD HORTON: I MEAN, I DON'T MONITOR YOUR OPERATIONS.
ANDREW BATEY: NO, BUT WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU? CHAD HORTON: YEAH, I'M SURPRISED THAT THERE'S NO DISCHARGE BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTY REGULAR.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT MAY BE DIFFERENT.
ANDREW BATEY: YEAH, WAS IT ALSO RAINING? CAN YOU CONFIRM IT WAS RAINING DAYS PRIOR TO THIS ALLEGED EVENT? CHAD HORTON: TO THIS? ANDREW BATEY: YEAH, IT WAS RAINING, CORRECT? CHAD HORTON: I WILL SAY THAT WHEN IT DOES RAIN, THERE IS MORE DISCHARGE, I THINK, BECAUSE IT FILLS THE TRAILER.
ANDREW BATEY: SO IT IS POSSIBLE IT COULD BE ALSO RAINWATER? CHAD HORTON: RAINWATER YOU AGREE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: YES FOR SURE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO BEFORE THE CITY RESTS, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD WHAT THIS PREVIOUS CODE CASE KEEPS BEING MENTIONED.
AND SO I THINK THAT THESE-- I THINK THERE ARE FACTS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS CASE.
IN THE PREVIOUS CODE CASE, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WERE LEVIED.
AND SO THERE THE OUTCOME WAS THERE WAS A FINDING OF VIOLATION BUT NO FINE.
AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES WERE LEVIED AND THEY WERE PAID.
SO I JUST WANTED TO-- THAT'S FACTUAL, LIKE PREVIOUS CODE CASE.
ANDREW BATEY: I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT.
I WAS OUT OF TOWN WHEN THAT CASE HAPPENED, AND I INSTRUCTED MY OFFICE MANAGER NOT TO PAY ANYTHING BECAUSE WE WERE NOT IN VIOLATION.
AND I DID NOT WANT THIS EXACT THING HAPPENING WHERE YOU TOOK IT AS ADMISSION OF GUILT.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT THAT WAS US TRYING TO BE FRIENDLY WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND HAVE THIS THING DISAPPEAR, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT HAPPENED.
AND WHEN I PRESENT MY CASE, I WILL PRESENT A CASE OF HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION.
TERESA L. PRINCE: BUT IT WASN'T-- I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT, IT WAS-- HARRISON W. POOLE: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS ISN'T BEING BROUGHT AS A REPEAT VIOLATION.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT-- I MEAN, EACH CASE IS INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.
ANDREW BATEY: MAYBE IT'S MY MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT IN THIS, THERE WAS TWO INFRACTIONS.
ONE WAS ODOR AND ANOTHER ONE WAS THE DISCHARGE AGAIN, CORRECT? HARRISON W. POOLE: I MEAN, FROM UNDERSTANDING THE VIOLATION, THE PRESENTATION OF THE CITY, THEY WEREN'T BRINGING IT AS A REPEAT VIOLATION.
THEY WERE TREATING IT AS A FIRST VIOLATION.
SO I MEAN, JUST BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE PRESENTATION, BUT I MEAN, I WILL DEFER TO HEAR ANY ARGUMENTS.
ANDREW BATEY: OH, NO, TOTALLY.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE COMBATIVE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: ANYTHING ELSE? HARRISON W. POOLE: WELL, THIS IS THE ONLY SECOND DISCHARGE CASE THAT'S HEARD.
TERESA L. PRINCE: ARE YOU DONE? HARRISON W. POOLE: ANY FURTHER WITNESSES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: NO, NO FURTHER WITNESSES.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BATEY, I'M GOING TO ASK THIS IN AN INTERESTING WAY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL? AND YOU WILL ALSO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY YOURSELF.
ANDREW BATEY: POTENTIALLY, DEPENDING ON THE QUESTIONING, MY OPS MANAGER, MATT.
BUT OTHERWISE, HE'S ALREADY SWORN IN.
SO I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE THIS EVIDENCE AND I GUESS TESTIFY ON MY OWN.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO AT THIS TIME, YOU'RE NOT CALLING, BUT YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTAND.
ARE THERE ANY DOCUMENTS OR ITEMS YOU'D LIKE TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE? ANDREW BATEY: YES, SIR.
ANDREW BATEY: I HAVE WITH ME RECEIPTS FROM THE FIRST CASE CODE ENFORCEMENT.
THE FINDINGS FROM THE STATE WHEN THEY WERE CALLED TO SURPRISE INVESTIGATE US, WHICH I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT WE DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE COMING.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING OR DONE ANYTHING FOR THEIR FINDINGS.
THEY'RE FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL ISSUE AT ALL.
AND RECEIPTS FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WE PREVENTATIVELY TRIED TO DO BASED ON MRS. RIMES SUGGESTION IN THE LAST CASE.
AND HOW WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY, WHICH I THINK GOES TOWARDS MY FACTS OF THE CASE THAT I'D LIKE TO PRESENT, AND HOW WE FEEL WE'VE BEEN TARGETED AND PURSUED UNFAIRLY.
SO I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE FACTS.
I'LL READ THEM AND I'LL PROVIDE ALL THIS AND THEN GIVE IT TO THE COURT, IF THAT WORKS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO YOU'VE GOT A STACK OF PAPERS THERE.
ANDREW BATEY: CAN I GIVE YOU ONE.
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE FOR ALL OF OUR RECEIPTS.
ANDREW BATEY: MAY I JUST READ THIS FAX HERE BECAUSE IT'S A SUMMARY AS MY TESTIMONY MOVING FORWARD? HARRISON W. POOLE: THAT HELPS CLARIFY, BECAUSE I LOOK AT THIS AND NOT READING AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION YET IT APPEARS TO BE AN OUTLINE OF SORTS THAT YOU'VE PREPARED, TO PREPARE FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
IT IS PART OF-- IT'S JUST LIKE MY FACTS FOR THE CASE.
I WANTED YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE A TIMELINE AND TRACK RECORD OF EVENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE,
[00:45:01]
AND THEN THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE I'VE PROVIDED, WHICH IS RECEIPTS AND ALL OF THE FINDINGS FROM THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES THAT SAID, THERE ARE NO ACTUAL VIOLATIONS OCCURRING.HARRISON W. POOLE: OK, LET'S DO THIS PIECE BY PIECE.
ONE IS, IF IT'S YOUR INTENTION TO READ THIS TO ME, YOUR TESTIMONY STANDS AS THAT EVIDENCE.
AND THIS CAN JUST BE KIND OF A SUMMATION OF IT.
ANDREW BATEY: I WANTED IT IN THE RECORD.
HARRISON W. POOLE: IT WOULD BE DUPLICATIVE.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: OTHER ITEMS, WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS JUST GIVE MS. PRINCE A MOMENT TO LOOK OVER THEM.
LET ME KNOW IF SHE HAS ANY OBJECTIONS JUST SO I CAN KNOW IN ADVANCE AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE POOLE.
AND ALSO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO SIMILARLY TO WAS TREATED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS JUST RESERVE ANY OBJECTION TO, PARTICULARLY THIS PACKET THAT IS BEING PRESENTED AS FACTS UNTIL WE GET TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY.
AND SO TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE IS SOME CODE ENFORCEMENT LABOR HOURS AND A TOTAL-- THE NOTICE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OCTOBER 15, PROPERTY OF SEVERAL PAGES OF INFORMATION THAT APPEAR TO BE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS.
AND THEN NUMEROUS RECEIPTS FROM VARIOUS DATES JULY 8, OCTOBER 12, OCTOBER 21, OCTOBER 22.
ANOTHER INVOICE FROM MARCH 24, 2026-- TWO OF THOSE.
A DUMPSTER INVOICE FROM MARCH 31, 2026.
A QUICKBOOKS RECEIPT FOR FENCING FROM JULY 15, 2026.
SOME AMAZON RECEIPTS FROM OCTOBER 15.
AND THEN HE HAS IN HERE THE AGENDA, THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THEY WILL BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD THEN WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BATEY, ARE THESE YOUR ONLY COPIES? ANDREW BATEY: NO, I MADE THEM FOR YOU.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I WAS JUST GOING TO ADVISE YOU THAT THESE BECOME PART OF THE RECORD, SO YOU WILL NOT GET THEM BACK.
AND SO THESE ARE THE ONLY SET THAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
THESE ARE ALREADY IN THE RECORD.
OBVIOUSLY I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THEM OR REVIEWED THEM.
SO IF THERE IS ANYTHING OF PARTICULAR NOTE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION DURING YOUR PRESENTATION.
BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY.
ANDREW BATEY: THE FIRST THING I THINK YOU SHOULD-- I WOULD SUGGEST LOOKING AT WOULD BE THE STATE FROM HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS THAT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
THEY WERE CALLED TWICE, ONCE FOR THE ODOR AND THEN ONCE FOR DISPOSAL OF YEAST AND HOPS.
THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID SOMEONE HAD CALLED IN AND THEY FELT ANNOYED THAT THEY WERE BEING CALLED REPEATEDLY.
AND IT'S IN MY VIEW THAT THEY WERE BEING CALLED TO TRY AND CREATE EVIDENCE AGAINST US IN THIS HEARING, GIVEN HOW THE FIRST HEARING WENT.
SO I WILL READ THIS, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO-- THAT'S THE FINDINGS.
THE ONLY ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED, TESTED, LOOKED AT EVERYTHING AND FOUND NO VIOLATION FROM THE STATE.
I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.
PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY.
ANDREW BATEY: SO I BROKE THIS INTO SECTIONS.
THE INITIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION FROM THE ALLEGED STORMWATER CONTAMINATION.
OFFICER CRYSTAL RIMES ALLEGED THAT THE FARMERS TRAILER, WHICH IS NOT OUR TRAILER, ACTUALLY OWNED BY A FARMER, PARKED BEHIND OUR BREWERY, WAS CONTAMINATING STORMWATER DRAINAGE.
THERE WAS NO TESTING RESULTS, SAMPLES OR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINATION WE WERE PROVIDED.
THE TRAILER BELONGED TO A FARMER, NOT MOCAMA BREWING COMPANY.
DESPITE DISPUTING THE ALLEGATIONS, WE WERE OFFERED TO COOPERATE FULLY TO RESOLVE HER CONCERNS.
OUR INTENTION WAS TO ESTABLISH A POSITIVE, COOPERATIVE, AND WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND TO DEMONSTRATE OUR WILLINGNESS TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND AVOID UNNECESSARY ENFORCEMENT DISPUTES IN THE FUTURE.
OFFICER RIMES TOLD US THAT IF WE MOVED THE TRAILER BEHIND OUR FENCING, EXCAVATED APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT DEEP OF GRAVEL ALONG THE STREET, AND REPLACED IT WITH FRESH GRAVEL, SHE WOULD RECOMMEND DROPPING THE HEARING.
SHE GAVE US 48 HOURS TO COMPLETE THE WORK, OR SHE WOULD PROCEED WITH ENFORCEMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT IT WAS A HOLIDAY WEEKEND GOING INTO 4TH OF JULY.
OVER THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND, WE ARRANGED EMERGENCY CONTRACTORS, INSTALLED ADDITIONAL GATES,
[00:50:03]
MOVED THE TRAILER, REPLACED THE GRAVEL.THE TOTAL COST OF MOCAMA WAS OVER $9,000, SUPPORTED BY RECEIPTS AND PROOF OF PAYMENT.
ALL REQUESTED WORK WAS COMPLETED WITHIN HER 48-HOUR DEADLINE, WITH PHOTOS AND PROOF SENT TO HER.
WE PERFORMED THE WORK IN GOOD FAITH DESPITE DISPUTING ANY CONTAMINATION HAD OCCURRED.
TERESA L. PRINCE: OK, SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD OBJECT TO THIS TESTIMONY.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PREVIOUS HEARING.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTAND YOUR OBJECTION.
AFTER COMPLETING THE PROPOSED, THE REQUESTED WORK, WE CONTACTED OFFICER RIMES IN THE CITY TO CONFIRM THAT THE HEARING WOULD BE CANCELED.
OUR REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION WERE UNANSWERED.
BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD CONFIRM THE HEARING STATUS, WE SENT OUR OPERATIONS MANAGER TO ATTEND JUST IN CASE.
DESPITE OUR COMPLETION OF REQUESTED WORK, THE CITY PROCEEDED TO HEARING AND REQUESTED THE MAXIMUM PENALTY.
THE CITY DID NOT PROVIDE US WITH ANY ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR PROCEEDING AFTER WE COMPLETED THE CONDITIONS OFFICER RIMES HAD IDENTIFIED AS GROUNDS FOR RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL.
WE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE THE MATTER AND IMPROVE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT.
IN OUR VIEW, THE CITY'S SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS DEMONSTRATED THE OPPOSITE-- A FAILURE TO DEAL WITH US IN HONOR AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION, OR HONOR OUR PROPOSED RESOLUTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS RAISES SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT BAD FAITH ENFORCEMENT AND THE RELIABILITY OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE BUSINESS SEEKING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.
SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THE NEIGHBOR COMPLAINT, OFFICER RIMES RETURNED TO MOCAMA, ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER CITY EMPLOYEE, WHICH I NOW BELIEVE WAS PROBABLY MARCO.
I DIDN'T KNOW YOUR NAME AT THE TIME.
SHE CLAIMED THAT THE NEIGHBOR HAD COMPLAINED ABOUT OUR OPERATIONS AND SAID THAT SHE WAS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE.
WE DISPUTED THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MOCAMA WAS UNLAWFULLY DISCHARGING MATERIALS INTO THE STORM DRAINS.
WE EXPLAINED THAT THE WATER SHE WAS OBSERVING WAS ORDINARY RAINWATER FROM THE STORM.
WE ALSO DISPUTED ANY UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTION THAT OWNERS IN THE AREA-- THAT ODORS IN THE AREA ORIGINATED FROM OUR BREWERY.
A SUBSEQUENT PAPER MANUFACTURING FACILITY OPERATES APPROXIMATELY TWO BLOCKS AWAY, PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE POTENTIAL SOURCE, AND I ASKED FOR EVIDENCE.
OFFICER RIMES STATED THAT SHE WOULD RETURN WITH ANOTHER CODE VIOLATION.
BEFORE ALLEGED SOLICITATION-- AFTER SPEAKING DIRECTLY WITH THE NEIGHBOR, REPRESENTATIVE-- I PUT BUSINESS AS AN ACCIDENT-- WE LEARNED THAT OFFICER RIMES HAD REPORTEDLY ENCOURAGED THAT NEIGHBOR TO SUBMIT A COMPLAINT AGAINST MOCAMA.
THE NEIGHBOR ALSO REPORTED THAT OFFICER RIMES DISCUSSED THE EARLIER WATER-RELATED CASE, AND INDICATED THAT SHE BELIEVED SHE WOULD PURSUE MOCAMA OVER ODORS.
THE STATEMENTS RAISE A SERIOUS CONCERN OR QUESTION-- WAS OFFICER RIMES INDEPENDENTLY RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS OR ACTIVELY GENERATING COMPLAINTS TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS? WE REQUEST THAT OFFICER RIMES ADDRESS THESE STATEMENTS, WHICH I THINK SHE HAS NOW DONE, ON THE RECORD, AND THAT THE NEIGHBORS FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT BE ADDRESSED BY HER, WHICH HE HAS ALSO DONE.
THIS CONDUCT, IF CONFIRMED, RAISES SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT IMPARTIALITY, PROFESSIONALISM, AND THE USE OF ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY REPEAT MONITORING OF OUR PROPERTY.
MOCAMA PERSONNEL HAVE REPEATEDLY OBSERVED CODE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS, INCLUDING OFFICER RIMES, AND OTHER STAFF, DRIVING SLOWLY BY OUR PRODUCTION AREA, SOMETIMES THREE TO FOUR TIMES DAILY.
SHE HAS BEEN ENTERING OUR PARKING LOT, PARK VISIBLY ON 8 STREET, REMAINED BRIEFLY WITHOUT ENTERING THE BUSINESS OR INVESTIGATING ANYTHING AND THEN DEPARTING.
THESE VISITS HAVE OCCURRED DURING ONGOING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
WE REQUEST THAT THE CITY EXPLAIN THE LEGITIMATE ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE, FREQUENCY, AND DOCUMENTATION OF THESE VISITS.
WE ARE SEEKING CITY VEHICLE LOCATION RECORDS, INSPECTION LOGS, AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS TO ESTABLISH THE FULL EXTENT OF THIS ACTIVITY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BATEY, I UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUESTS, AND THERE IS A PROCESS TO MAKE THOSE.
ANDREW BATEY: I'M GOING TO DO THAT.
I ALWAYS WANTED THIS IN THE RECORD.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND THERE IS A PROCESS TO MAKE THOSE REQUESTS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: PLEASE KEEP YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THIS CASE.
ANDREW BATEY: WE VIEW THIS AS A PRESENCE, AS AN INTIMIDATION RATHER THAN CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL BUSINESS.
WITH APPROXIMATELY THE PAST TWO WEEKS, THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, WHICH I'VE PROVIDED, YOU RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT, THE SUMMARY FOR, THEY HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS CONCERNING ALLEGED ODORS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE PERSONNEL, INSPECTED OUR BUSINESS, ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, COMMUNICATED US NO VIOLATION WAS IDENTIFIED.
A SECOND COMPLAINT WAS THEN MADE CONCERNING HOW MOCAMA DISPOSES SPENT HOPS AND YEAST.
STATE INSPECTORS AGAIN RETURNED.
AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, COMMUNICATED TO US, NO VIOLATION WAS IDENTIFIED.
THAT INSPECTION THEN AGAIN ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, BECAUSE APPARENTLY WHEN YOU DO THE HOSPITALITY OR HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS, IT ALSO GOES TO THE STATE LIQUOR BOARD.
SO THE STATE LIQUOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE REGULATORY PERSONNEL CAME AND ALSO INSPECTED MOCAMA AND FOUND NO, NO VIOLATIONS.
THE INSPECTION LIKEWISE IDENTIFIED NO VIOLATIONS LIKE I JUST SAID, WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO US.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BATEY, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT? I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT-- ANDREW BATEY: I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT YET THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING INFORMATION FOR THE OFFICIAL COMPLAINT.
BUT I BELIEVE MARCO HAS ALREADY STATED
[00:55:01]
THAT THEY WERE THE ONES THAT CALLED WHEN THEY TESTIFIED.I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A FEMALE THAT CALLED.
ANDREW BATEY: SHE SAID A FEMALE, I'M NOT SURE.
MARCO AGUILERA: YEAH, IT WAS ME.
ANDREW BATEY: MAYBE YOU SOUND, I DON'T KNOW.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SOMEBODY ELSE CALLED, MAYBE.
ANDREW BATEY: HOWEVER, WE QUESTIONED THE TIMING, THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE PROXIMITY OF TODAY'S HEARING AND RAISE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COORDINATION OF CITY ENFORCEMENT.
UNANSWERED REQUESTS TO RESCHEDULE TODAY'S HEARING.
I TRAVEL 200 DAYS A YEAR FOR REAL WORK THAT HAS DOD IMPLICATIONS AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS RELATED TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY.
THE CITY SCHEDULED THIS HEARING ON NOVEMBER 5, AND I HAD TO CANCEL A MEETING SO I COULD BE HERE SO THAT ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE FROM MY TEAM WOULD ACCIDENTALLY TRY TO REMEDY THE SITUATION AND WILLINGLY SAY WE WERE GUILTY TO SOMETHING WE'RE NOT GUILTY OF.
SO I'VE CHANGED MY ENTIRE FLIGHT.
I'VE COST $3,000 TO BE HERE SO THAT I CAN ADDRESS THIS DIRECTLY WITH COURT OR MAGISTRATE, OR WHATEVER WE SAY HERE.
MY CALL IS TO ASK TO HAVE THIS SCHEDULED AT A DIFFERENT DATE WERE NOT RETURNED.
IN FACT, NO ONE'S ANSWERING THE PHONES.
WE CANNOT GET A HOLD OF ANYBODY AND WE RECEIVED NO MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS ANOTHER DATE.
AS I SAID, I'M PHYSICALLY PRESENT HERE AGAIN TODAY AT A PERSONAL COST OF MORE THAN $3,000.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MY FAMILY PURCHASED MOCAMA TO SAVE IT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
IN FACT, I'VE INVESTED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WE HAVE 50, ROUGHLY, EMPLOYEES WHO RELY ON IT FOR INCOME, INCLUDING ALL OF THE MULTIPLE NONPROFITS THAT USE IT AS A THIRD SPACE FOR ALL OF THEIR FUNDRAISING, ALL OF THE EVENTS WE HOST, ALL OF THE KIDS' SCHOOL DRIVES.
EVERYTHING THAT WE DO FOR THE COMMUNITY, WE MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY.
IN FACT, I'VE LOST $2 MILLION THIS YEAR, KEEPING IT ALIVE FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE THAT WE ARE ATTACKED AND THAT THIS CONTINUE WHEN I'M DOING NOTHING BUT TRYING TO BE HERE FOR A POSITIVE GOOD FOR THIS COMMUNITY AND KEEP THIS THING ALIVE FOR EVERYONE THAT LIVES HERE.
I'LL STOP THERE BECAUSE THE REST OF THIS I'VE ENTERED INTO.
WE'VE OBVIOUSLY LOST $12,000 IF YOU ADD IT TOGETHER.
AND MY POSITION IS THAT THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS WASN'T RAINWATER.
THEY'VE NEVER TESTED THE WATER.
ANY AUTHORITY THAT HAS COME AND ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED HAS FOUND THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG THAT WE'VE DONE.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY'VE PROVEN THEIR CASE.
AND I THINK THAT WE ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY ATTACKED BY CRYSTAL RIMES.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MS. PRINCE, ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. BATEY? TERESA L. PRINCE: I MAY HAVE A QUESTION.
MAY I SEE THE ONE FROM THE STATE AGAIN? HARRISON W. POOLE: ANOTHER TWO.
TERESA L. PRINCE: NO, RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
HARRISON W. POOLE: YEAH, THEY'RE BOTH TOGETHER.
TERESA L. PRINCE: ONE BASIC QUESTION THAT I HAVE, IS IT YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT RAINWATER HAS A FOUL AND PUTRID ODOR? ANDREW BATEY: I'M NOT AN EXPERT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULAR WATER AND SOMETHING THAT HAS A FOUL AND PUTRID ODOR? ANDREW BATEY: I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S MY JOB TO PROVE THAT IT WAS ONE OR THE OTHER.
AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT I THINK IT WAS RAINWATER.
AND DO YOU HAVE-- MARCO AGUILERA: SO JUST A STATEMENT ON THE HEALTH INSPECTION FROM THE STATE.
WHEN THEY DID CONTACT ME BACK, I THINK IT WAS A SAMANTHA, THERE WAS A FEMALE INSPECTOR THAT WENT OUT THERE.
SHE SAID THAT WHEN SHE WENT OUT, SHE DID OBSERVE THE CREWS, I GUESS, WERE CLEANING AND HOSING DOWN THE BACK.
SO THAT'S WHY SHE DIDN'T SEE ANY DISCHARGE.
BECAUSE THERE WAS A CLEANUP ACTIVELY TAKING PLACE.
ANDREW BATEY: WE CLEANED THE BREWERY EVERY DAY.
MARCO AGUILERA: THERE WAS SOMEONE OUT THERE WITH A HOSE CLEANING THE BACK.
AND THAT THEY TOLD HER THAT THEY WERE CLEANING UP TO CLEAN THE ODOR BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIAL EVENT HAPPENING THAT WEEKEND.
I THINK IT THE WEEKEND OF THE CONCERT.
SO SHE DIDN'T FIND ANY VIOLATION AT THAT TIME.
ANDREW BATEY: AND SHE'S COME BACK TWICE, ALONG WITH THE STATE.
MARCO AGUILERA: AND I'VE ONLY COMPLAINED ONCE, SO I DON'T KNOW.
ANDREW BATEY: BUT WE CLEAN EVERY SINGLE DAY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND SO MY QUESTION ON THIS STATE OF RESTAURANTS-- I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY.
DO YOU HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF YOU? ANDREW BATEY: NOT IN FRONT OF ME.
CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THE TWO DATES THAT THEY CAME OUT FOR ME? DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THEM? ANDREW BATEY: I CAN LOOK AT THEM.
OCTOBER 19 AND NOVEMBER THE 3, I BELIEVE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND ON WHAT DATE DID MS. RIMES FIND YOU IN COMPLIANCE? ANDREW BATEY: 14, I BELIEVE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: SO THESE INSPECTIONS OCCURRED AFTER YOU WERE FOUND IN COMPLIANCE? ANDREW BATEY: YEAH, WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE THEM.
I DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEY WERE CALLED.
WE LITERALLY WERE OPERATING AS NORMAL.
THEY JUST SHOWED UP AND SAID THAT SOMEBODY CALLED THEM.
[01:00:01]
TERESA L. PRINCE: BUT FOR THE RECORD, WHEN THE STATE CAME OUT AND FOUND YOU IN NO VIOLATION, IT WAS AFTER THE DATE THAT THE CITY HAD FOUND YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMELL AND THE DISCHARGE? ANDREW BATEY: POSSIBLY.I MEAN, SHE CAME FIRST TO PRETEND LIKE SHE WAS OUR FRIEND, WHICH CLEARLY IN BAD FAITH DID NOT HAPPEN THE FIRST TIME.
SO I TOLD HER TO HER FACE THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE HER, AND THAT I DON'T FIND HER TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
AND I ACTUALLY TOLD HER, THE REASON I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE I DON'T TRUST YOU.
TERESA L. PRINCE: BUT FOR THE RECORD, TODAY THE TESTIMONY OF MS. RIMES WAS THAT FOUND-- ANDREW BATEY: ALLEGEDLY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: --ON OCTOBER 15.
ANDREW BATEY: ALLEGEDLY, I WAS NOT OUT OF COMPLIANCE-- I WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. PRINCE? CRYSTAL RIMES: HOW HAVE YOU TRIED CONTACTING CODE ENFORCEMENT? ANDREW BATEY: WE'VE CALLED MULTIPLE TIMES.
CRYSTAL RIMES: ONLY FOR THIS CASE.
ANDREW BATEY: NO, WE'VE CALLED MULTIPLE TIMES, EVEN THE PREVIOUS CASE.
CRYSTAL RIMES: WHICH NUMBER? ANDREW BATEY: MATT CAN PROBABLY TELL YOU.
CRYSTAL RIMES: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW.
I JUST HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING.
ANDREW BATEY: I NOT RECEIVED ANY CALLS EITHER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MATT, WOULD YOU HAVE-- WOULD YOU LIKE TO-- IT'S THE NUMBER YOU HAVE TO COME.
YOU HAVE TO COME FORWARD AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE SWORN AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
DO I NEED YOU HERE? HARRISON W. POOLE: IF YOU CAN STAND NEXT TO MR. BATEY, THAT'S FINE.
MATT HARRIS: MATT HARRIS, 629 SOUTH 8 STREET.
I CALLED THE NUMBER AT THE TOP OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION.
WHATEVER'S IN BLUE, JUST UNDER FERNANDINA BEACH.
AND I'VE TRIED MULTIPLE TIMES, AND NOBODY ANSWERS THE PHONE.
IT'S LIKE MIDDAY BETWEEN 10:30 AND 2 O'CLOCK.
CRYSTAL RIMES: WE'RE FULLY STAFFED.
I MEAN, WE'RE THERE ALL THE TIME, AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY CALLS.
SO MR. BATEY, I JUST WANT TO ASK TO.
WAS THE FIRST THING YOU SAID WHEN WE CAME TO TALK ABOUT THE SITUATION FOR THIS CASE, THE IMMEDIATE FIRST THING YOU SAID THAT WE WERE HARASSING YOU.
ANDREW BATEY: I ACTUALLY DON'T RECALL, BUT I REMEMBER THAT BEING THE TONE OF MY MESSAGE.
SO I RECALL THAT-- ANDREW BATEY: I BELIEVE YOUR COLLEAGUE WAS DRINKING OUT OF-- WHAT I DO REMEMBER BECAUSE IT WAS ABNORMAL, YOUR COLLEAGUE HAD A HAMBURGER OR SOMETHING, OR WAS DRINKING OUT OF A-- YOU WERE DRINKING OUT OF A STYROFOAM CUP, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.
CRYSTAL RIMES: THAT WASN'T A PART OF THE QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED A LOT ABOUT THE FIRST CASE.
DO YOU NOT RECALL ME GIVING YOU A LOT OF EXTRA TIME, 10 DAYS, BECAUSE IT WAS A HOLIDAY WEEKEND? ANDREW BATEY: YOU WERE PRESSING US CONSTANTLY TO HAVE IT DONE.
WE WERE WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK TO TRY AND GET IT DONE, AND WE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AS POINTED OUT, TO FIX THAT.
AND THEN YOU DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK TO US.
IN FACT, YOU TOLD US THAT IF WE FIXED IT AND REMEDIED IT, THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS HEARING NO LONGER PROCEED.
CRYSTAL RIMES: THE LAST HEARING? ANDREW BATEY: THE LAST HEARING, CORRECT.
I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO INTO THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS KNOWN THAT WE ALSO WANT TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
THAT WAS THE PART OF US ACTUALLY REQUESTING TO TALK TO YOU.
BUT YOUR TONE, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IT DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAY TOO.
ANDREW BATEY: I REALIZE THIS ISN'T A THERAPY SESSION.
BUT I DO WANT TO ADMIT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE YOUR FRIEND.
I WOULD LOVE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO BE FRIENDLY.
CRYSTAL RIMES: DID YOU KNOW THAT WE RECOMMENDED DISMISSING FINES HERE BEFORE TOO? HARRISON W. POOLE: LET'S KEEP IT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK WE'VE GONE KIND OF FAR ENOUGH WITH THIS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE? CRYSTAL RIMES: YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO WORK ON.
WE RECOMMENDED DISMISSING FUNDS THE LAST TIME.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AGAIN, THIS CASE-- I DON'T MEAN TO BE WITH MY OWN WITNESS.
I KNOW HE HAD SOME LATITUDE, BUT I THINK FOR THE CITY.
WE'LL JUST TRY AND STICK WITH THIS CASE.
ANDREW BATEY: THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BATEY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU WISH TO CALL? ANDREW BATEY: NO, SIR.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE ELSE THAT'S HERE TO TESTIFY FOR THIS MATTER? OK SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE CITY'S POSITION IT IS IN COMPLIANCE.
BUT YOU ARE SEEKING A DETERMINATION
[01:05:01]
THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION, CORRECT? MARCO AGUILERA: WE'RE SEEKING A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE VIOLATION DID EXIST.IT DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER, BUT THAT THE VIOLATION DID EXIST.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT WOULD BE THAT THE NEXT TIME AN ODOR IS PRESENT, IT WOULD BE TREATED AS A REPEAT VIOLATION.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND THIS IS UNDER SECTION 42-42 THAT PROHIBITS ANY PERSON ERECT, CONTRIVE, CAUSE, CONTINUE, MAINTAIN, OR PERMIT TO EXIST ANY PUBLIC NUISANCE WITHIN THE CITY.
AND I READ THE PUBLIC NUISANCE DEFINITION TO BE ANY ACT THING, OCCUPATION, CONDITION OR USE OF PROPERTY WHICH SHALL CONTINUE FOR SUCH A LENGTH OF TIME AS TO, ONE, SUBSTANTIALLY ANNOY, INJURE OR ENDANGER THE COMFORT, HEALTH, REPOSE OR SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC.
TWO, IN ANY WAY RENDER THE PUBLIC INSECURE IN LIFE FROM THE USE OF PROPERTY FOR THREE UNLAWFULLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH, OBSTRUCT, TEND TO OBSTRUCT OR RENDER DANGEROUS FOR PASSAGE ANY STREET, ALLEY, HIGHWAY, NAVIGABLE BODY OF WATER, OR OTHER PUBLIC WAY.
MARCO AGUILERA: SO THERE IS A FURTHER SECTION DOWN UNDER HEALTH NUISANCE WHERE IT FURTHER DEFINES AS EMITTING OR CAUSING ANY FOUL, OFFENSIVE, NOISOME, NAUSEOUS, NOXIOUS, DISAGREEABLE ODORS, EFFLUVIA OR STENCHES, OR EXTREMELY REPULSIVE TO THE PHYSICAL SENSES OF AN ORDINARY PERSON WHICH ANNOY, DISCOMFORT, INJURE, INCONVENIENCE, THE HEALTH OF AN APPRECIABLE NUMBER OF PERSONS WITHIN THE CITY.
SO THAT IS THE DEFINITION THAT WE'RE GOING UNDER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND ON THE SECOND PART, THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEMS. THIS WILL BE A QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR MS. PRINCE.
WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE WE HEARD TODAY, IF YOU COULD SUMMARIZE THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT SECTION 82-464.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YES, LET ME JUST GET TO HER PRESENTATION.
THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IS THAT IT WAS COMING FROM UNDER THE FENCE, FROM THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE DUMPSTER IS.
IT DID FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN AS THE PREVIOUS DISCHARGE.
SO TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT RAINWATER, AND EVEN IF IT HAD RAINED AND RAINWATER CARRIED IT, IT WAS THE DISTINCT PATH, THE PICTURES AND THE DISTINCT PATH.
THE DEFINITION OF ILLICIT DISCHARGE OUT OF THE STORMWATER CODE 82-464, WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD, ANY ORGANIC OR INORGANIC MATTER, BUT NOT LIMITED TO-- AND THEN IT GIVES A WHOLE LIST OF ITEMS. AND THEN THE ILLICIT DISCHARGE DEFINITION IN THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 62-624.200.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO READ ALL OF THAT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
WHAT WAS THE SECTION? TERESA L. PRINCE: OH, YES.
AND IT'S ON HER SLIDE, SLIDE SEVEN.
AND IT'S AN ILLICIT DISCHARGE MEANS ANY DISCHARGE TO A MUNICIPAL STORM SEWER THAT IS NOT COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF STORMWATER, ENTIRELY OF STORMWATER.
AND SO THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT RAIN AND WHETHER RAINWATER CARRIED IT THERE-- ANDREW BATEY: I WAS QUESTIONING IF IT WAS RAINWATER, AND NOT WHETHER IT WAS CARRIED.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND EXCEPT DISCHARGES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE NPDES PERMIT.
AND THEN THEY DO NOT CAUSE VIOLATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THOSE LISTS ARE THE EXEMPT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THOSE ARE ALLOWED TO-- TERESA L. PRINCE: THOSE ARE ALLOWED
[01:10:01]
AND THEY'RE NOT-- IT DOESN'T LIST THIS POLLUTANT.ANDREW BATEY: I MEAN, THERE WAS JUST-- THE TESTIMONY-- I HATE TO BRING UP THE OLD CASE-- BUT THAT'S NOT THE TESTIMONY FROM LAST TIME WAS THAT WHAT IS IN THE TRAILER, I GUESS, IS THE SPENT HOPS-- HARRISON W. POOLE: THERE'S NO HOPS IN THE TRAILER.
THERE'S ACTUALLY ZERO HOPS IN THAT TRAILER.
ANDREW BATEY: OK, WHATEVER WAS IN HOPS WAS SUPPOSEDLY MAKING THE COWS DRUNK WHEN YOU FEED IT TO THE COWS.
THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE THE COWS DRUNK ON STOP.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND I'VE CLOSED THE EVIDENTIARY PORTION, SO I'M NOT CONSIDERING ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON SOME OF THIS BECAUSE-- TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE SHOWING IT COMING FROM THE SAME LOCATION AND-- ANDREW BATEY: SHOWING RAINWATER TERESA L. PRINCE: --PATTERN AND THE ODOR.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THOSE WOULD BE THE ITEMS THAT I WOULD POINT TO.
AND SO WE'VE AGREED WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE PRIOR CASE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT SAYING IT'S COMING FROM THE SAME LOCATION.
I SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP OF YOU'VE GOT WATER COMING UNDER A FENCE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE THAT TELLS ME THAT THAT'S NOT WATER LINE FLUSHING, LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION, DIVERTED STREAM FLOWS.
THOSE TYPES OF DISCHARGES FROM POTABLE WATER SOURCES, FOUNDATION DRAINS, AIR CONDITIONING, CONDENSATE, IRRIGATION WATER, ET CETERA, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT IT HAD AN ODOR.
COMBINED WITH THE ODOR, THE FOUL ODOR AND THE PERSISTENCE OF THE ODOR.
AND THEN ONCE THE TRAIL OF LIQUID WAS CLEANED UP AND GONE, THE ODOR ALSO WAS GONE.
MARCO AGUILERA: I WILL SAY THAT WHEN WE WERE THERE, THERE WAS FOUR OR FIVE-- HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO ANY MORE TESTIMONIES AT THIS POINT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, BASED ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING-- ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE.
I'M SAYING THAT BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TODAY, I'M TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION ON AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT FITS IN WITH THE LAW AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED A POLLUTANT BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.
WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE.
WE'VE GOT AN ODOR AND A NUISANCE FROM ALLEGED FROM THAT ODOR.
AND WE'VE GOT THIS DISCHARGE INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO RECONCILE THAT AND SAY THAT, OK, AM I CORRECT THAT IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THAT WAS A POLLUTANT IS ITS ODOR, THAT THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THIS HEARING.
TERESA L. PRINCE: CORRECT, THE ODOR, AND THEN ONCE IT WAS CLEANED UP, THE ODOR WAS GONE, WHICH WAS TESTIFIED TO IN THE HEARING.
I JUST WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY FINAL ARGUMENTS? NOT NEW EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, BUT ANY FINAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE I ENTER MY DECISION IN THIS CASE.
ANDREW BATEY: YEAH, THANK YOU.
IT'S MY POSITION, AS I'VE STATED, THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE PROVEN THAT WATER IS NOT FROM RAIN-- LIKE IT RAINED THE WHOLE WEEK BEFORE.
THAT'S THE EXACTLY THE PATH THAT SHOULD BE DRAINING, LIKE INTO A DRAIN SYSTEM.
AND ALSO LIKE THEY'VE PROVEN NOTHING IN TERMS OF, THAT IT WAS CONTAMINATED IN ANY KIND OF WAY.
THERE ARE NO HOPS IN OUR TRAILER WHATSOEVER.
SO THAT'S JUST AN ASSUMPTION OR AN A BROAD CLAIM THEY'RE MAKING.
ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE ODOR, THEY CAN'T PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE ODOR, AND ADDITIONALLY, THEY SENT STATE REPS WHO CAME AND FOUND NO VIOLATION THREE TIMES.
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY STATEMENT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE ANYTHING.
AND I FEEL THAT WE'RE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY ATTACKED.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND FROM THE CITY? TERESA L. PRINCE: YES, THANK YOU.
I THINK THE CITY HAS PROVEN THAT THE ODOR WAS PRESENT ON BY THE VARIOUS TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN AND THAT THE SOURCE OF THE ODOR WAS THIS IMAGE THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE PICTURES.
WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THE STATE CAME OUT THREE TIMES, BUT THERE'S ALSO BEEN EVIDENCE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD THAT IT WAS AFTER COMPLIANCE, WHICH IS IN THE RECORD OF A DATE.
AND ALL OF THE VISITS BY THE STATE WERE AFTER COMPLIANCE OF THE ODOR AND COMPLIANCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF A POLLUTANT AND THE TRAIL OF WATER THAT WAS THERE.
SO BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TODAY, I AM GOING TO FIND THAT THERE IS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A VIOLATION OF SECTION 42-42, THAT'S THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR THE ODOR.
IT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLIED PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO IMPOSE ANY FINE OR COST OR ANYTHING
[01:15:03]
LIKE THAT.BUT WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME NATURE COULD BE CONSIDERED A REPEAT VIOLATION.
AS FOR THE DISCHARGE INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEMS, I KNOW IT'S A DIFFICULT CASE TO PROVE.
BUT BASED ON MY OBSERVATIONS, I CAN'T RELY ON WHAT WAS IN THE PRIOR CASE AND CONNECT THAT AND TIE THAT TO THE SOURCE OF IT.
I SEE PHOTOGRAPHS, I SEE WATER, I HEAR SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT ODORS, BUT I DON'T SEE THE SOURCE OF THE WATER.
CLEARLY IT'S ENTERING INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.
BUT I THINK BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE CITY HAS NOT CARRIED ITS BURDEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING OR COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION ON THAT.
I WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
DO EITHER OF THE PARTIES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANDREW BATEY: NO, SIR.
TERESA L. PRINCE: BASED ON THE ORIGINAL FINDING, MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE UNDER 42-42, WILL THERE BE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE FEES IMPOSED? LET ME SEE IF THEY'RE BROKEN OUT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
ANDREW BATEY: WE HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FIXING A PROBLEM WE PROMISED WOULD NOT BE PRESENT.
SO I WOULD ASK THE MAGISTRATE TO PLEASE NOT FINE US ADDITIONALLY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND DO WE HAVE ANY WAY TO BIFURCATE OR SEPARATE WHAT COSTS WOULD BE AFFILIATED WITH THE ODOR, THE 42-42 VIOLATION AND THE STORMWATER VIOLATION? MARCO AGUILERA: NO.
CRYSTAL RIMES: IF I MAY-- MARCO AGUILERA: THE INSPECTIONS WOULD BE FOR BOTH VIOLATIONS AT THE SAME TIME.
I MEAN, THERE'S ONLY ONE HEARING ON THERE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: BUT I KNOW THAT THE-- TERESA L. PRINCE: I MEAN, THE ONE CERTIFIED MAIL, THE ONE LETTER WOULD ALL BE IN THE SAME LETTER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: CAN YOU BRING UP THAT ON THE-- I DON'T HAVE ANY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: IT'S PAGE 21 OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
IF YOU CAN MAKE IT ANY BETTER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: BASED ON THE TESTIMONY, WHEN WAS THE ODOR FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE? WAS THAT THE FOLLOWING DAY? NO? TERESA L. PRINCE: SO I BELIEVE WHAT HE'S TRYING TO GET TO-- ANDREW BATEY: WE DID NOTHING.
TERESA L. PRINCE: DO WE KNOW HOW ANY INSPECTIONS WERE RELATED TO JUST THE ODOR? ANDREW BATEY: WE DID NOTHING TO CHANGE.
CRYSTAL RIMES: RECENTLY NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NOT AN ODOR.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS TWO DAYS AGO.
HARRISON W. POOLE: LET ME SEE.
CRYSTAL RIMES: WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO GO? HARRISON W. POOLE: I THOUGHT I SAW IT FROM THE PRESENTATION OR YOUR TESTIMONY.
GO BACK TO THE FIRST, I GUESS, THE CHART WITH THE TWO DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS.
DID THAT NOTE THE COMPLIANCE DATE? CRYSTAL RIMES: SO ON 11TH FOUR.
THIS IS WHEN THERE WAS-- HARRISON W. POOLE: GO BACK FURTHER, OR EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION.
WHERE'S THE BEGINNING? TERESA L. PRINCE: PAGE FOUR.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO THERE'S NO DATE.
ANDREW BATEY: I BELIEVE THE DATE WAS OCTOBER 19 THAT FOUND THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.
AND I'M PRETTY SURE SOMEONE TESTIFIED THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THE DAY AFTER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I MEAN, AGAIN, I HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, THE REQUEST.
AND I HAVE A DIFFICULTY BIFURCATING WHICH INSPECTIONS WERE FOR WHICH MATTERS.
SO CAN WE GO BACK TO THE COMMENTS SECTION? TERESA L. PRINCE: YEAH.
AND WHILE SHE'S TURNING TO THAT ON PAGE 21, WE COULD JUST PROPOSE THE INSPECTION FOR THE VIOLATION DAY, THE INSPECTION THAT CURED IT, AND THEN THE HEARING COSTS TO TRY AND BIFURCATE IT, TO GIVE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR BIFURCATION.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO BASED ON THAT REPRESENTATION IS I'M GOING TO REMOVE $150 FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS THE INSPECTIONS RELATED TO THE STORM WATER SYSTEM.
AND SO I WILL IMPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THE AMOUNT OF $243.
TERESA L. PRINCE: OK, THANK YOU.
HARRISON W. POOLE: IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PARTIES? ANDREW BATEY: YEAH, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
ANDREW BATEY: WHERE SHOULD I SUBMIT THE FORMAL REQUEST FOR ALL OF CONVERSATIONS, TEXT MESSAGE, EMAIL, GPS SYSTEMS? HARRISON W. POOLE: SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY LEGAL ADVICE, BUT I CAN ADVISE YOU THAT THE CITY CLERK IS THE CITY CLERK FOR ANY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS.
[4.2 MARGARITA OLSON, 1023 S. 10TH ST., FERNANDINA BEACH, FL 32034, CODE CASE #CE260800102. Violation(s) of the City of Fernandina Beach Code of Ordinances exist: Section 42-117(b) Failure to Maintain Exterior Surfaces. Requesting Special Magistrate determination of the case.]
[01:20:03]
HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CASE.THIS IS ITEM 4.2 ON THE AGENDA.
THIS IS MARGARITA OLSON IN REGARDS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1023 SOUTH 10TH STREET IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
32034, THIS IS CODE CASE CE26-0800102.
AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER? OK, SEEING NONE.
MY NAME IS CRYSTAL-- HARRISON W. POOLE: ONE POINT.
ARE THERE ANY DOCUMENTS OR ITEMS YOU'D LIKE TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD? CRYSTAL RIMES: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER ALL PERTINENT EVIDENCE IN THIS PRESENTATION INTO THE RECORD.
THE 13-PAGE PRESENTATION WILL BE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MY NAME IS CRYSTAL RIMES, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
THE MATTER THAT IS BROUGHT TO YOU IS CONCERNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1023 SOUTH 10TH STREET.
THE RESPONDENT IS MARGARITA OLSON, THE OWNER OF RECORD, ACCORDING TO NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS.
SO WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS THAT WERE INITIALLY SEEN AND CITED.
THE ONE THAT STILL REMAINS IN VIOLATION, THOUGH, AND I WANT TO FOCUS ON IS 42-117(B), FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE EXTERIOR SURFACES, REPAIR OR REPLACE THE BROKEN FENCE SLATS IN THE ROOF NEEDED TO BE CLEANED AND HAD DISCOLORATION.
THE OTHER WERE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
SO THIS WAS ON THE INITIAL INSPECTION.
THERE WERE SOME-- LET ME GET MY LITTLE LASER POINTER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO THE INITIALS ON THE LEFT AND THE RE-INSPECTION ON THE RIGHT SHOWING IT'S CLEARED UP.
AND THEN THERE WAS A TRAILER HERE.
I DID NOTICE THE FENCE, WHICH I BELIEVE WE'LL SEE IN JUST A MOMENT, A BETTER PHOTO, AND THEN THE ROOF, TOO.
AS YOU CAN SEE, LITTLE SMALL, BROKEN PIECES OF FENCE THAT COULD BE REPAIRED.
WE DID ISSUE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER SEPTEMBER 23.
IT WAS SENT CERTIFIED MAIL AND IT WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON THE FRONT DOOR AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS COMPLETED.
SO THE INITIAL INSPECTION WAS SEPTEMBER 8, 2026.
THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 22.
WE CONDUCTED A TOTAL OF FIVE INSPECTIONS.
IT'S BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR 58 DAYS.
CURRENT STATUS IS 42-117(B) IS THE VIOLATION.
THE CITY HAS INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENFORCEMENT ACTION TOTALING $312.29.
SO AT THIS TIME, THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING-- TO FIND THE RESPONDENT.
VIOLATION OF 42-117(B) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EXTERIOR SURFACES.
ORDER COMPLIANCE WITHIN 32 DAYS BY MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2026.
IMPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $312.29, AND IMPOSE A FINE OF $50 PER DAY BEGINNING AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE ON DECEMBER 08, 2026, WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE COMPLIANCE IS ACHIEVED.
HARRISON W. POOLE: HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER? CRYSTAL RIMES: THERE WAS ONE CALL THAT DID COME IN.
ACTUALLY, IT WAS THE DATE OF THE LAST HEARING THAT WE HELD HERE.
AND I IMMEDIATELY WROTE DOWN HER INFORMATION.
AND ABOUT A WEEK LATER, GIVE OR TAKE, I DID TRY TO FIND HER INFORMATION.
I COULD NOT FIND THAT SAME NUMBER.
SO WE WENT INTO UTILITIES, TRIED TO CONTACT HER.
I DID EVERYTHING I COULD, FOUND EMAILS.
I EVEN GOT HOLD OF HER OLD BOSS AND HE SAID HE WAS REACHING OUT ON BEHALF, THROUGH HIS COMMUNICATION METHODS.
BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF HER.
UNFORTUNATELY, I JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH HER AGAIN.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ANYTHING FURTHER? CRYSTAL RIMES: THAT IS IT.
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I'LL FIND THERE'S COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO FIND THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE CODE.
SPECIFICALLY SECTION 42-117(B).
I WILL ORDER THAT THE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY DECEMBER 7, 2026.
AND IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THAT TIME, IMPOSE A $50 A DAY DAILY FINE BEGINNING ON DECEMBER 8, 2026, AND CONTINUING UNTIL THE PROPERTY ATTAINS COMPLIANCE.
I'LL ALSO AWARD THE CITY THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THE AMOUNT OF $312.29.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION NEEDED FROM MY RULING? OK.
I WILL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THAT PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE COMING DAYS.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT GEARS SLIGHTLY.
[4.3 MELISSA BARRONTON, 5753 HIGHWAY 85 N., PMB 4078, CRESTVIEW, FL 32536. NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY CASE #C0009531144. Appeal of Notice of Vicious Dog Designation under the City of Fernandina Beach Code of Ordinances Section 18-6 (Vicious Animals). Requesting Special Magistrate determination regarding the appeal.]
OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 4.3.[01:25:02]
THIS IS PROPERTY ADDRESS 5753 HIGHWAY 85 NORTH.I GUESS THAT'S HER MAILING ADDRESS.
SO THIS IS NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY CASE NUMBER 9531144.
THIS IS AN APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF A VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE ORDINANCES, SECTION 18-6.
SO IT'S GOING TO BE UNDER SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCEDURES THAN WE HAVE FOR THE PRIOR TWO CASES.
SO MS. PRINCE, DID YOU WANT TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE THAT WILL BE IN EFFECT FOR THIS APPEAL.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YES, MAGISTRATE POOLE.
AND ALSO WE WERE GOING TO THE CITY WANTED TO REQUEST A QUICK RECESS OF FIVE OR 10 MINUTES TO JUST CHANGE THE PRESENTATIONS AND GET READY FOR THIS SEPARATE-- THIS IS A SEPARATE HEARING UNDER-- THIS IS NO LONGER A CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING.
AND THEN JUST RECONVENE AT IF YOU WANT TO DO FIVE MINUTES, WHATEVER YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I THINK THAT'S FINE.
WE'LL COME BACK AND START AT 3:02.
TERESA L. PRINCE: IF THE WITNESSES COULD COME FORWARD.
HARRISON W. POOLE: WE ARE GOING TO CALL THIS TO ORDER.
KIND OF SWITCHING HATS AND CONVENING AS SIMPLY A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR THIS APPEAL, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CODE ENFORCEMENT MATTER.
BUT THIS IS ITEM 4.3 ON THE AGENDA.
MELISSA BARRINGTON IN REGARDS TO NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY CASE CE-0009531144 APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF A VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION.
AND SO WE ARE CONTINUING THIS PROCEEDING.
SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE WE TOOK OUR RECESS, THIS IS UNDER A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCEDURE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE.
AND SO THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
AND SO I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OR THE SCHEDULING.
SO I WILL SKIP TO THE ORDER OF THE PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING THE HEARING.
FIRST, I WILL OPEN THE HEARING.
ALL WITNESSES WHO HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN SWORN WILL BE SWORN IN, INCLUDING ALL CITY STAFF, THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLEE, AND ANY OTHER PERSONS THAT ARE HERE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY.
THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY, FIRST, THE CITY STAFF'S PRESENTATION OF THE CASE AND ANY WITNESSES WHICH WE WILL LIMIT TO A PERIOD OF 20 MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
AND THAT TIME-- ANY OF THESE TIME LIMITS MAY BE EXTENDED UPON REQUEST FOR THE PARTIES IN MY DISCRETION.
THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION.
AND SO THEY WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ANY OF THE CITY STAFF WITNESSES, BUT THEN ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS OR WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE IN THE MATTER.
WITH THIS ONE, BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ADVERSE PARTY, WE WILL CALL THEM THE APPELLEE, AND WE WILL GIVE THEM THE SAME CONSIDERATION OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEN 20 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE.
BEYOND THAT, WE WILL HAVE-- I SEE A CROWD HERE, NOT SURE WHOSE WITNESSES AND WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
ANYONE THAT'S A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AT THAT POINT THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, YOU'LL BE GIVEN TIME, TOO.
BECAUSE OF THE HOUR AND BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE, WE WILL LIMIT THAT TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED UPON SHOWING JUSTIFICATION.
WE WILL ACTUALLY MOVE ON TO FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLEE.
THAT FINAL ARGUMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES PER PARTY.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP, AND THEN FOLLOW THAT UP WITH EITHER RENDERING AN ORDER OR TAKING THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.
BEYOND THAT, ANY PARTY THAT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION IN THIS APPEAL WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE NASSAU COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.
AND THAT 30 DAYS WILL BEGIN FROM THE DATE THAT WRITTEN ORDER IS SIGNED AND ENTERED INTO THE CITY'S RECORDS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES AS I'VE DESCRIBED THEM? TERESA L. PRINCE: I HAD ONE, MAGISTRATE POOL, IF YOU DON'T-- AS TO THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND WE DO HAVE COPIES OF THESE PROCEDURES IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE THEM.
THE COMMENTS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES THAT THE MAGISTRATE HAS JUST OUTLINED.
AND WITH THE ONE MINUTE, AND AS SHALL NOT BE CONSTITUTE NEW EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, THE TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE TO BE RELEVANT TO THE CASE, AS DETERMINED BY THE MAGISTRATE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THAT'S RIGHT.
YES, SIR, YOU HAD YOUR HAND RAISED AS A CLARIFICATION? BARRINGTON: THAT WAS ACTUALLY MY QUESTION, BECAUSE NONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
[01:30:02]
WERE ACTUALLY WITNESSES TO THE EVENT THAT OCCURRED.TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WE WILL BRING THAT OUT IN OUR TESTIMONY.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE ONE PARTY THAT WILL BE APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YES, TO CLARIFY THAT.
ARE YOU GOING TO CALL HER? HARRISON W. POOLE: YES, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THE OWNER OF THE DOG, MS. MELISSA BARRINGTON, ASKED TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY.
HER HUSBAND, MR. SCOTT BARRINGTON, IS IN THE AUDIENCE AND WILL TESTIFY LIVE.
THE CITY CONSENTED TO THAT PROCEDURE WITH YOUR CONSENT AS WELL.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND PERHAPS I SHOULD.
AUTOMATED VOICE: IF YOU RECORD YOUR NAME AND REASON FOR CALLING, I'LL SEE IF-- OH, YEAH.
HARRISON W. POOLE: HARRISON POOLE, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
HARRISON W. POOLE: GOOD AFTERNOON.
IS THIS MS. BARRINGTON? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): IT IS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THIS IS HARRISON POOLE.
I AM THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
WE ARE HERE IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS.
AND WE'VE JUST CALLED TO ORDER TO HEAR THE APPEAL IN NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY CASE CE-0009531144.
I APOLOGIZE, I PREVIOUSLY WENT OVER THE PROCEDURES THAT WE'LL BE FOLLOWING IN THIS APPEAL.
BEFORE I THOUGHT THAT WE NEED TO GET YOU ON THE LINE.
SO I WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THAT.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
BUT FIRST, THE PRESENTATION WILL BE BY STAFF, THE CITY, ANY WITNESSES AND THEY WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES.
AND THEN YOU, AND/OR YOUR HUSBAND, WHO IS HERE IN CHAMBERS, WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT, WITNESSES, EVIDENCE, ET CETERA.
THE APPELLEE, OR THE OPPOSING PARTY, WILL HAVE THEIR OWN OPPORTUNITY FOR 20 MINUTES.
AND THEN WE HAVE SET ASIDE SOME TIME FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, WHICH WILL BE LIMITED TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON AND IS GOING TO BE LIMITED AS FAR AS THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT EVIDENCE.
FOLLOWING THAT, WE'LL HAVE FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM EACH PARTY AT 10 MINUTES EACH.
I WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ENTER INTO DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES I'VE JUST BRIEFLY OUTLINED FOR YOU? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): NO, I DO NOT.
HOW DO WE WANT TO HANDLE THE SWEARING IN OF THE WITNESS BEING TELEPHONICALLY? ARE WE CONSENTING TO HER GIVING THAT OATH OVER THE PHONE? TERESA L. PRINCE: I WOULD CONSENT TO IT.
WHEN I SPOKE WITH MS. BARRINGTON, TOO, WE AGREED THAT MR. BARRINGTON WOULD REALLY GIVE THE TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD.
AND MR. BARRINGTON CAN TESTIFY TO THIS.
BUT I WOULD CONSENT TO HER BEING SWORN OVER THE PHONE IN THE EVENT SHE WANTS TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY.
BARRINGTON: THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD TO THAT IS SHE WAS PRESENT WHEN WE MET WITH ANIMAL CONTROL.
SO WOULD EVERYONE HERE PRESENT IN CHAMBERS, THAT INTENDS TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY OR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE, PLEASE STAND AND TO BE SWORN BY THE CLERK.
CLERK: DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND/OR EVIDENCE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AND/OR PRESENT IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? ALL: YES.
SO FOLLOWING THIS, THIS HEARING IS OPENED.
AND SO I WILL TURN TO MS. PRINCE FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND WITNESSES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE POOLE.
WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT I CAN HAND A PACKET TO YOU AND A PACKET TO MR. BARRINGTON.
I DID EMAIL THE EVIDENCE THAT WE WERE SUBMITTING TODAY TO MR. BARRINGTON AND TO ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, MR. ANDERSON, THAT'S PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THIS CASE.
AND THEN THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL BE PUTTING THE EVIDENCE UP ON THE SCREEN.
BUT AS AN OVERVIEW, ON MAY 12, 2026-- HARRISON W. POOLE: LET ME INTERRUPT YOU, MS. PRINCE.
DO ANY OF THE PARTIES HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE ITEMS BEING RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD? NO.
THEN BASED ON NO OBJECTIONS, THEY'LL BE RECEIVED INTO THE RECORD.
AND THOSE ITEMS ARE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7, WHICH IS A CASE REVIEW DETAIL REPORT FROM THE HUMANE SOCIETY, A WITNESS STATEMENT FROM MR. ANDERSON DATED JULY 9.
A REQUEST FOR A DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATION DATED JULY 9, A VICTIM WITNESS STATEMENT FROM THE FERNANDINA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT IS SWORN AND DATED JUNE 2, 2026.
THE NOTICE OF THE VICIOUS DOG VIOLATION DATED JULY 22, 2026 FROM THE ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY.
THE REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF THAT DESIGNATION
[01:35:01]
BY MR. AND MRS. BARRINGTON.AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MR. ANDERSON, WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE HEARING.
SO THOSE ARE THE SEVEN ITEMS THAT ARE BEING ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
AND IF YOU WOULD PUT THE CASE DETAIL REPORT ITEM NUMBER ONE UP INTO THE PACKET FOR YOU.
AND AT THIS TIME I'M JUST GOING TO DO AN OVERVIEW.
ON MAY 12, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT IN AMELIA PARK.
AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE WILL RECEIVE FROM MR. ANDERSON IS THAT THE BARRINGTON'S DOG, LOTTIE, L-O-T-T-I-E, UNPROVOKED, ATTACKED MR. ANDERSON'S DOG.
AND ON THAT DAY, THE POLICE CAME OUT.
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HALL WENT OUT.
BUT EVERYBODY THAT WENT TO THE SITE TO HEAR THE COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINT DID NOT WITNESS IT.
THE ONLY WITNESS THAT IS HERE TODAY THAT WITNESSED THE EVENT IS MR. ANDERSON, WHO WE WILL CALL AS A WITNESS.
AS YOU HAVE STATED FOR THE RECORD, THE DESIGNATION-- WE WILL SHOW EVIDENCE THAT MR. ANDERSON DID APPROACH THE HUMANE SOCIETY AND ASKED FOR A DESIGNATION OF A DANGEROUS DOG UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT EVIDENCE WITH YOU.
AND AT THAT TIME, WE'LL HAVE MS. HAIR TESTIFY THAT SHE REVIEWED THE RECORD.
AND IT WAS THE RECORD OF THE STATEMENTS, AND THERE WAS NO DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATION.
IT'S A HIGHER THRESHOLD AND ALSO A MUCH HIGHER CONSEQUENCE THAT THAT WAS NOT MET, BUT THAT A REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CODE THAT THE VICIOUS ANIMAL AND IN THIS CASE A VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION, WAS FOUND UNDER SECTION 18-6 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.
AND PARTICULARLY AND SPECIFICALLY WHICH WE WILL HAVE MS. HAIR TESTIFY TO-- THE DEFINITION OF THE VICIOUS ANIMAL THAT WAS USED IS AN ANIMAL THAT ATTACKS, BITES, STRIKES, OR INJURES A HUMAN BEING OR OTHER ANIMAL WITHOUT PROVOCATION.
AND SO IT WAS THAT YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT WILL PRESENT THAT IT'S THAT FIRST PART OF THE DEFINITION ON WHICH THE DESIGNATION WAS MADE.
SO WITH THAT, I DID ALSO WANT TO ADVISE THE MAGISTRATE FOR THE RECORD, THE APPEAL-- I KNOW WE WENT THROUGH THAT AT THE BEGINNING-- THE APPEAL WAS NOT TIMELY UNDER THE CITY'S CODE, BUT THE CITY DID CONSENT AND AGREE, AND THE PARTIES AGREED TO GO AHEAD AND NOT EVEN BRING IT TO THE CONTEST IT AND HAVE THE MAGISTRATE MAKE A DETERMINATION.
SO YOU'LL SEE THE APPEAL IN THE RECORD, AND IT IS NOT TIMELY.
BUT WE ALL CONSENTED THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO CALL MY FIRST WITNESS, WHICH IS OFFICER HAIR.
OFFICER HAIR, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND IF YOU'LL PUT THERE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND WILL IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE OUR WITNESSES TESTIFY FROM UP AT THE DAIS SO THAT THE PARTIES WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPROACH THE MICROPHONE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION? TERESA L. PRINCE: YES.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IS STILL ON.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU A PACKET SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: OFFICER HAIR, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR PROFESSIONAL ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
HAIR: MY NAME IS OFFICER HAIR.
AND WERE YOU PREVIOUSLY SWORN BY THE CLERK? HAIR: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: I'M HANDING YOU THE PACKET THAT I'VE GIVEN TO THE MAGISTRATE AS WELL, WHICH IS THE EVIDENCE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: OFFICER HAIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU'RE EMPLOYED? HAIR: I AM EMPLOYED WITH NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY AND WORK WITH FERNANDINA BEACH ANIMAL CONTROL AS AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND YOUR DUTIES AS AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR DUTIES? HAIR: MY DUTIES ARE TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS PROVIDE SERVICES AS STRAY DOGS AND OTHER CAPTURES FOR CATS.
AND IF YOU WOULD JUST GO TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THE FIRST-- SO IN FRONT OF YOU, OFFICER HAIR, IS THE CASE VIEW REPORT.
AND THE CITY IS GOING TO PUT INTO THE RECORD THAT OFFICER HALL, WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON THAT
[01:40:03]
WENT TO THE SCENE AND STARTED THIS REPORT, IS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY AND WAS NOT AVAILABLE TODAY.BUT OFFICER HAIR, YOUR TESTIMONY, YOUR INFORMATION ON THIS CASE DETAIL REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE THREE.
CAN YOU REVIEW THAT AND THE INFORMATION ON THAT PAGE.
AND LET ME KNOW BASED ON YOUR REVIEW IF IT IS AN ACCURATE RECORD AND WHAT HAS IT BEEN ALTERED IN IS WHAT YOU ENTERED.
AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE ON JULY 09, THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED? HAIR: ON JULY 9, STEVEN ANDERSON CAME INTO THE SHELTER TO REQUEST A FORMAL DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON MAY 12.
AT THAT TIME, WE DID RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION AND MEET ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE DANGEROUS DOG REQUEST.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WHO DID YOU MEET WITH TO MAKE THE DANGEROUS DOG DETERMINATION? HAIR: I MET WITH OFFICER RATHBONE.
SHE WAS PREVIOUS SHELTER DIRECTOR.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND IN THAT MEETING ON JULY 9, DID ANY OTHER DESIGNATIONS-- WERE ANY OTHER DESIGNATIONS DETERMINED? HAIR: YES, SO WE DID NOT DETERMINE DOG LOTTIE AS MEETING THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 767 FOR DANGEROUS DOG.
HOWEVER, BASED OFF EVIDENCE PROVIDED, DOG LOTTIE MET CITY ORDINANCE FOR VICIOUS DOG.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND GOING BACK TO THAT, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, SO WHAT EVIDENCE DID YOU REVIEW IN ORDER TO MAKE THE VICIOUS ANIMAL DESIGNATION? HAIR: SO WE REVIEWED THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF CITY FERNANDINA BEACH ANIMAL CONTROL PROVIDED BY STEVEN ANDERSON.
IT WAS PROVIDED ON JULY 9, 2026, AS WELL AS THE CASE NOTES FROM OFFICER HALL.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND BY CASE NOTES FROM OFFICER HALL, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE CASE NOTES ON PAGE 1 AND PAGE 2 THAT OUTLINED THE INCIDENT ON MAY 12? HAIR: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT ON MAY 12? HAIR: I WAS NOT THE RESPONDING OFFICER ON MAY 12.
SO ALL I HAVE ARE THE NOTES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY OFFICER HALL AND THE WITNESS STATEMENTS.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICER HALL AFTER THE INCIDENT? HAIR: AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, SHE DID DISCUSS THAT THIS WAS A CASE THAT SHE WAS ON AND PROVIDED HER CASE NOTES TO ME.
BUT I WASN'T A OFFICER WORKING WITH HER ON THE CASE AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS OCCURRING.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND BASED ON WHAT SHE PROVIDED TO YOU, DO THESE NOTES ON MAY 12 LOOK LIKE THEY'RE ACCURATE AND HER CASE NOTES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO YOU? HAIR: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND SO ONCE YOU MADE THE DETERMINATION-- AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WITNESS STATEMENT NUMBER 2, WHICH IS THE SECOND THING IN YOUR PACKET, WHAT IN THAT WITNESS STATEMENT DID YOU RELY ON TO MAKE THE VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION? HAIR: ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE WITNESS STATEMENT-- TERESA L. PRINCE: THE WITNESS STATEMENT DATED JULY 9.
SO BASED OFF FOR THE VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION, BASED OFF THE WITNESS STATEMENT, I DID DESIGNATE THE DOG VICIOUS BASED OFF OF THE LARGE BERNEDOODLE, WHICH WAS BLACK OR DARK-COLORED ATTACKED MY DOG.
AND THAT'S WHAT MADE THE DESIGNATION BECAUSE IT MET THE DEFINITION.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WHAT IN THE EVIDENCE, EITHER IN THE CASE DETAIL REPORT OR IN THAT STATEMENT, LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS UNPROVOKED? HAIR: SO BASED OFF THE WITNESS STATEMENT, IT WAS STATED THAT THE DOG BROKE LOOSE FROM THE WOMAN'S CONTROL AND RAN TOWARDS THE DOG.
AND AS WELL AS THE CASE NOTES, OFFICER HALL STATED,
[01:45:01]
WHEN SHE SPOKE WITH THE DOG SITTER, THE DOG SITTER EXPLAINED THAT THE DOG GOT LOOSE.OFFICER HALL ASKED IF THE DOG BIT THE OTHER DOG.
SHE EXPLAINED THAT THE DOG PULLED THE LEASH OUT OF CONTROL AND RAN ACROSS THE STREET AND WENT AFTER THE OTHER DOG.
AND THAT'S ON PAGE TWO FOR THE CASE NOTES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THEN IF YOU BRING UP ITEM NUMBER 3, IF YOU WILL GO TO THE ONE YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT SAYS NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY AT THE TOP.
AND IS THAT AN ACCURATE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR THE DANGEROUS DOG? HAIR: YES, THIS IS THE REQUEST THAT STEVEN ANDERSON PROVIDED ON JULY 9 FOR THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION REQUEST FOR DANGEROUS DOG.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND SO THE REQUEST WAS FOR DANGEROUS DOG, BUT DURING YOUR REVIEW, YOU FOUND THAT IT COULD BE DESIGNATED OTHERWISE UNDER THE CITY'S CODE? HAIR: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WHO ADVISED YOU THAT YOU COULD TAKE THAT COURSE OF ACTION? HAIR: OFFICER RATHBONE.
AND THEN, AS A RESULT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, CAN YOU BRING UP ITEM NUMBER 5? HAIR: ITEM NUMBER 5? TERESA L. PRINCE: AND I'M REFERRING TO THE DOCUMENT IN YOUR PACKET DATED JULY 22, 2026.
SO YOU'VE STATED IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT BASED ON YOUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD, YOU FOUND THE DOG TO BE A VICIOUS DOG UNDER THE CITY'S CODE.
CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS RECORD FOR US? HAIR: YES, THIS IS THE VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION FOR IT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WAS THIS PROVIDED TO MR. OR MRS. BARRINGTON? HAIR: YES, WE MET ON JULY 22 AND NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY TO WHERE I PROVIDED THEM THE DESIGNATION.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU AT THAT TIME.
UNLESS THE MAGISTRATE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR MR. BARRINGTON HAS ANY QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU LIKE HIM TO QUESTION HER NOW OR WE'RE DONE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: LET'S LET MR. BARRINGTON PROCEED FIRST.
BARRINGTON: OFFICER HAIR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN-- I BELIEVE IT'S ON AROUND JULY 15.
YOU CONTACTED US VIA PHONE TO ASK FOR THE MEETING IN PERSON.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION WHERE YOU CALLED US? HAIR: YES, CALLED TO MEET FOR NASSAU.
BARRINGTON: AND SO WHAT DID YOU EXPLAIN TO US IN THAT CALL? WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING? HAIR: SO THE PURPOSE OF THE PHONE CALL WAS TO-- SO ANYTIME A DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION GETS INITIATED, WE HAVE TO INFORM YOU THAT YOUR DOG IS UNDER A DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO PROVIDE THAT NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION.
BARRINGTON: AND YOU TOLD US-- CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU TOLD US IN THAT TIME THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER KIND OF INFORMATION TO ASSIST YOU IN YOUR INVESTIGATION? HAIR: YES, SO DURING THAT TIME, IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES, YOU'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE A WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANY WITNESSES DURING THAT AS WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED.
BARRINGTON: AND SO WHEN WE SHOWED UP TO ANIMAL CONTROL ON JULY 22, AND WE TRIED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, YOU SAID IT WAS NOT IN THE FORM OF YOUR DESIGNATED FORM, AND IT HAD TO BE IN THAT FORM OR YOU COULDN'T ACCEPT.
IS THAT CORRECT? HAIR: SO I DID ADVISE FOR THE WITNESS STATEMENT THAT YOU PROVIDED, THAT IT DID NOT STATE THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED.
I DID ADVISE THAT YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT WITNESS STATEMENT.
AND I DID PROVIDE MY EMAIL TO YOU GUYS, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WITNESS STATEMENTS FROM THE WITNESS DOG SITTER.
BARRINGTON: BUT ON THAT FORM THAT YOU PROVIDED US TO GET THAT WITNESS STATEMENT, DOES IT HAVE A REQUIREMENT ON THAT FORM
[01:50:03]
THAT IT MUST BE NOTARIZED BY A FLORIDA NOTARY PUBLIC? HAIR: YES.AND SO THE OTHER WITNESS TO THE EVENT, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT WITNESS LIVES? HAIR: OFF-HOMETOWNE DRIVE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT PET-- BARRINGTON: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DOG SITTER, THE DOG WALKER, THE DOG SITTER.
HAIR: NO, I'M UNAWARE OF WHERE THE WITNESS LIVES.
BARRINGTON: SO HOW MANY WITNESSES WERE THERE TO THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED? HAIR: BASED OFF THE CASE NOTES THAT I READ, THERE WAS WITNESS STEPHEN ANDERSON, AS WELL AS THE DOG SITTER WHO HAD CONTROL OF THE DOG BEFORE IT BROKE LOOSE.
BARRINGTON: AND IN THOSE REPORTS, DID YOU CAPTURE WHERE THE DOG SITTER LIVES, THEIR RESIDENCE? HAIR: SO BASED OFF REPORTS, THE DOG SITTER-- IT WASN'T PERTAINING TO WHERE THE DOG SITTER LIVED, DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THE CASE AS THE DOG.
WE JUST NEEDED TO KNOW WHERE THE DOG SITTER WAS IN THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED.
BARRINGTON: SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING TO THE MAGISTRATE'S ATTENTION.
THE DOG SITTER LIVES IN NORTH CAROLINA.
AND SO THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT ON THERE THAT THE NOTARY HAD TO BE A FLORIDA NOTARY.
AND IT DOES SAY THAT ON THE FORM.
SO YOU CAN PULL UP THE FORM AND THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN SEE YOURSELF.
AND SO WE WERE NOT ABLE THEN TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU REQUIRED THAT TO BE SIGNED BY THAT NOTARY PUBLIC.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY SOME CONFUSION, I DON'T KNOW.
BARRINGTON: NO, NO, NO, BUT YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR HER.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD.
BARRINGTON: WELL, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FORM SAYS.
IT SAYS A FLORIDA NOTARY PUBLIC.
HAIR: I DO KNOW BASED OFF THE FORM, IT DOES STATE FOR NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF.
AND THERE IS A BLANK WHERE YOU CAN PUT A DIFFERENT STATE FOR THE NOTARY.
AND I DID NOT SPECIFY DURING OUR TALK THAT IT HAD TO BE A STATE OF FLORIDA NOTARY AS WELL, AS WE DID NOT DISCUSS THE NOTARY PROCESS.
BARRINGTON: THE FORM ONLY SAYS-- SO I CAN ONLY GO BY WHAT'S ON THE FORM.
THE FORM ONLY SAYS THAT A FLORIDA NOTARY PUBLIC MUST SIGN THAT.
AND SO I CAN'T INTERPRET WHAT BLANKS MEAN.
SO JUST ON THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT.
AND SO ON THAT DAY, WERE YOU PREPARED TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE? HAIR: YES, I SPOKE WITH YOU ON THAT DAY.
AND WHAT WAS PROVIDED WERE WITNESS-- NOT WITNESS STATEMENTS, BUT CHARACTER STATEMENTS FOR DOG LOTTIE.
BUT AS I WAS INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED, THOSE WITH CHARACTER STATEMENTS OF LOTTIE COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO THE DESIGNATION AS WE CAN ONLY GO BASED OFF THE WITNESS STATEMENTS OF THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED.
BARRINGTON: AND SO ON THAT DAY, DID YOU IMMEDIATELY PROCEED TO READ A VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION TO US? HAIR: YES, SO BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD, I DID INITIATE THE DESIGNATION OF VICIOUS DOG BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD.
BARRINGTON: AND IS IT NOT TRUE THAT YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAD ALREADY MADE THIS DESIGNATION BY THE TIME THAT WE HAD ARRIVED ON THE 22ND, THAT YOUR DECISION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BEFORE HEARING ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE? HAIR: SO BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD, IT DID MEET THE DEFINITION OF VICIOUS DOG.
THEREFORE, I DID MAKE THE DECISION TO DEEM THE DOG VICIOUS.
BARRINGTON: BUT YOU HAD ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION BEFORE WE ARRIVED ON THE 22ND? HAIR: SO BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE THAT I DID HAVE, YES, I DID MAKE THE DECISION BASED OFF AS THE EVIDENCE THAT I DID HAVE IN MY POSSESSION MET THE DEFINITION OF VICIOUS DOG.
BARRINGTON: AND SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT-- YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU WOULD HAVE TALKED TO ALL OF THE EYEWITNESSES TO THE INCIDENT? HAIR: SO ON THE DATE THAT OCCURRED, I WAS NOT THE RESPONDING OFFICER.
OFFICER HALL WAS THE RESPONDING OFFICER FOR THE ORIGINAL INCIDENT.
SO I WENT BASED OFF OFFICER HALL'S NOTES FOR THE INVESTIGATION.
BARRINGTON: BUT DID YOU TALK TO THE COMPLAINANT? HAIR: SO BASED OFF THE INVESTIGATION-- BARRINGTON: --FROM THE COMPLAINT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: LET'S DO ONE-- I'M SORRY, ONE AT A TIME.
SO LET'S MAKE SURE THAT YOU LET HER FINISH ANSWERING THE QUESTION AND MAKE SURE THAT HE CAN FINISH ASKING THE QUESTION.
HAIR: SO SINCE THE COMPLAINANT WASN'T THERE TO WITNESS, I DID INFORM YOU GUYS OF THE INVESTIGATION.
[01:55:03]
BUT I DID SPEAK WITH THE WITNESS AND I DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION OF THE DOG SITTER, NOR WERE ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF HER.BARRINGTON: SO ONE OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WAS AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS STATEMENT TAKEN ON JULY 9-- FROM THE COMPLAINANT.
SO WHEN THE DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED, WHICH WAS JULY 09, THE WITNESS/COMPLAINANT DID PROVIDE THE NOTARISED WITNESS STATEMENT WITH THAT COMPLAINT.
BECAUSE BASED OFF THE CASE NOTES, THERE WASN'T A PREVIOUS WITNESS STATEMENT FOR THE DATE WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.
I ONLY HAD THE CASE NOTES FROM THE PREVIOUS OFFICER.
BARRINGTON: BUT YOU DID ACCEPT THAT STATEMENT FROM THE COMPLAINANT AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION? HAIR: YES, AS THAT IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH THE DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION.
BARRINGTON: AND DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE OTHER WITNESS FOR THE SAME TYPE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? HAIR: I DID NOT HAVE HER INFORMATION, AND I WENT BASED OFF HER STATEMENT FROM THE CASE THAT OFFICER HALL PUT IN HER NOTES.
BARRINGTON: OFFICER HAIR, CAN I ASK YOU WHAT KIND OF TRAINING YOU HAVE RECEIVED BELIEVED ON CONDUCTING ONE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO CONDUCTING IT? HAIR: SO I BEGAN MY-- I BEGAN WITH NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY IN MAY OF 2025.
I TRAINED UNDER OFFICER RATHBONE, WHO HAD BEEN AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER FOR MANY YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT YEAR, SO I CAN'T STATE THAT AS I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT YEAR, AS WELL AS IN DECEMBER OF 2025, I ATTENDED DAYTONA STATE COLLEGE AND COMPLETED MY TRAINING AND BECAME A CERTIFIED ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
THAT TRAINING TAKES ABOUT A WEEK.
I WENT IN, STAYED IN DAYTONA AND COMPLETED UNDER ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS AND COMPLETED MY TRAINING.
BARRINGTON: AND HAD YOU EVER CONDUCTED A VICIOUS DOG INVESTIGATION PREVIOUSLY? HAIR: SO THIS IS MY FIRST VICIOUS DOG INVESTIGATION, BUT I HAVE CONDUCTED DID MULTIPLE DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO THIS ONE.
BARRINGTON: BUT I THINK THE IMPORTANT PART HERE IS YOU'RE TRYING TO INVESTIGATE AN ACT THAT HAS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MET ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE, CORRECT? HAIR: I'M SORRY, COULD YOU ASK-- BARRINGTON: YOU'RE TRYING TO INVESTIGATE AN INCIDENT OR AN ACT THAT OCCURRED, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THRESHOLDS OF EVIDENCE THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THAT INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? HAIR: YES.
SO FOR DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION AND VICIOUS DOG INVESTIGATION, ANYTIME WE INVESTIGATE EITHER OF THOSE AS THIS INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED, BASED OFF STEVEN ANDERSON MAKING THE FORMAL REQUEST TO US.
WE GO BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED AND CASE NOTES AND SEE IF THAT MEETS THE WORDED DEFINITION, YES.
BARRINGTON: BUT YOU INFORMED US THAT YOU HAD NEVER CONDUCTED A VICIOUS ANIMAL INVESTIGATION PREVIOUSLY.
HAIR: NO, I HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A-- THIS WAS MY FIRST VICIOUS DOG INVESTIGATION.
AND I HAVE CONDUCTED DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH ARE VERY SIMILAR.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION AND A VICIOUS DOG INVESTIGATION FOR INVESTIGATION WISE, WOULD BE THAT DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATIONS FALL UNDER FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 767, AND VICIOUS DOG IS CITY ORDINANCE 18-6, I BELIEVE SO.
BARRINGTON: BUT YOU WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ORDINANCE IN GREAT DETAIL IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? HAIR: YES.
BARRINGTON: AND IS IT TRUE THAT YOU TOLD US AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU MADE YOUR DECISION, YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS NO APPEAL PROCESS? HAIR: SO I WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CITY APPEAL PROCESS, BUT I DID STATE THAT YOU COULD APPEAL.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW THE LEGALITY OR-- BARRINGTON: WHICH IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO INVESTIGATE AND-- WE WERE TOLD BY YOU THAT THERE WAS NO WAY FOR US TO APPEAL THIS.
THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO APPEAL THIS WOULD BE TO TAKE IT TO COURT.
HAIR: SO I DID STATE DURING OUR MEETING THAT YOU DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.
I JUST WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS.
[02:00:04]
BARRINGTON: WHAT EVIDENCE DID YOU REVIEW THAT INDICATES THAT THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL ATTACK TO THE OTHER DOG? WAS THERE EVIDENCE POINTING TO THAT PHYSICAL ATTACK? HAIR: SO BASED OFF THE DEFINITION, THE DEFINITION DOES STATE THAT ANY DOG THAT BITES OR ATTACKS, THERE IS NO-- AND I WENT BASED OFF THE WITNESS STATEMENT THAT THE DOG-- BASED OFF THE WITNESS STATEMENT, IT STATES THAT THE DOG ATTACKED THE OTHER DOG.BASED OFF THE DEFINITION OF VICIOUS DOG UNDER CITY ORDINANCES, IT DOESN'T STATE THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN INJURY FOR THE ATTACK, JUST A REPORTED ATTACK BASED ON THAT.
BARRINGTON: AND SO THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO THAT ATTACK OCCURRING OTHER THAN SOMEONE SAID THAT THEIR DOG WAS ATTACKED? HAIR: YES, BASED OFF THE WITNESS STATEMENT.
BARRINGTON: ALL I WOULD NEED TO DO IS CALL AND SAY THAT SOMEONE'S DOG ATTACKED ME, OR MY DOG, AND YOU WOULD DEEM THEM VICIOUS? HAIR: IT JUST IS BASED OFF CASE BY CASE IF YOU HAVE A REPORT OF THE DOG.
WE GO BASED OFF WITNESS STATEMENTS.
BARRINGTON: BUT I JUST WILL POINT OUT AGAIN, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE ATTACK OTHER THAN A STATEMENT THAT SAID THAT THE DOG WAS ATTACKED.
HAIR: AGAIN, BASED OFF MY DEEMING OF THE DOG VICIOUS, I WENT BASED OFF THE OFFICER'S REPORT WHICH-- IN THE OFFICER'S REPORT, THE SITTER DID CONFIRM THAT THE DOG RAN ACROSS THE STREET OUT OF CONTROL AND WENT AFTER THE OTHER DOG.
AND THEN, AS WELL AS STEPHEN ANDERSON'S STATEMENT STATING THAT THE DOG ATTACKED HIS DOG.
BARRINGTON: AND THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION, BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THE RESPONDING OFFICER ON THAT DAY, IS DID THE ORIGINAL OFFICER MAKE ANY KIND OF NOTES OR INDICATIONS IN THE REPORT THAT A VICIOUS ANIMAL DESIGNATION SHOULD BE MADE FOR LOTTIE? HAIR: OFFICER HALL DID NOT NOTE ANYTHING IN THE CASE.
BARRINGTON: DID THE ORIGINAL OFFICER HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED HER TO WANT TO DESIGNATE LOTTIE AS BEING VICIOUS? BECAUSE I WANT TO POINT OUT THE TIMELINE.
THE INCIDENT OCCURRED ON MAY 12.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THAT WAS THE TIME.
BARRINGTON: AND THEN THIS PROCESS TO DESIGNATE AS VICIOUS KICKS OFF ON JULY 9.
HAIR: SO I WAS NOT CORRELATING WITH THE OFFICER DURING THE INVESTIGATION AT THIS TIME.
THE CASE WAS BROUGHT TO ME WHEN STEVEN ANDERSON MADE THE INITIAL DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION.
AND THEN BASED OFF MY TRAINING AS AN OFFICER AND REVIEWING THE CASES, I DID MAKE THE DECISION TO DEEM THE DOG VICIOUS BASED OFF OF THE EVIDENCE I HAD PROVIDED.
I DO NOT KNOW OFFICERS HALL'S THINKING OR WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS GOING TO.
BARRINGTON: AND DID THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU REVIEWED, DID IT INCLUDE THE WITNESS STATEMENT SIGNED ON JULY 9 FROM THE COMPLAINANT? HAIR: YES, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME THE DAY THAT THE DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION ALSO WAS INITIATED.
BARRINGTON: AND JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE 100% CLEAR ON THIS, YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO THE SITTER WHO WAS THE OTHER WITNESS? HAIR: NO.
I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? TERESA L. PRINCE: WELL, HE'S WITH US, SO HE'S NOT A PARTY.
I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE THE APPELLEE.
MR. ANDERSON IS HERE AS OUR WITNESS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS? TERESA L. PRINCE: YES.
WAS THE DESIGNATION-- WAS ACCEPTING THE WITNESS STATEMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRACTICE OF A REQUEST FOR A VICIOUS DOG? HAIR: IT IS THE PRACTICE FOR DANGEROUS DOG AS WELL AS VICIOUS DOG, YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THE WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU ON JULY 9, DID IT APPEAR CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE CASE DETAIL REPORT? HAIR: I'M SORRY? TERESA L. PRINCE: DID THE JULY 9 STATEMENT APPEAR CONSISTENT WITH THE CASE DETAIL REPORTS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO REVIEW FROM OFFICER HALL? HAIR: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THE WITNESS STATEMENT THAT YOU ACCEPTED ON JULY 9, IS IT A SWORN STATEMENT WHICH-- AND THEN LET ME EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU.
[02:05:02]
A NOTARIZED STATEMENT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY? HARRISON W. POOLE: I CAN MAKE THE DECLARATION-- TERESA L. PRINCE: YOU CAN SAY THAT? HARRISON W. POOLE: AND I CAN SEE IT FOR MYSELF.TERESA L. PRINCE: AND WITH THAT-- BARRINGTON: I DO HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT ONE.
SO THE STATEMENT MADE ON JULY 9 IS EXACTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENTS MADE ON MAY 12? HAIR: YES.
BARRINGTON: BECAUSE WHEN I READ THAT, I DON'T SEE THAT SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL INSIDE THAT REPORT ON MAY 12.
ONE QUESTION FOR YOU REAL QUICK IS, HOW MANY TIMES DID MR. ANDERSON, THE COMPLAINANT, HOW MANY TIMES DID HE REACH OUT TO YOU BEFORE YOU EVEN MET WITH US? HAIR: HE REACHED OUT FOR THE CASE-- I'M UNAWARE BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED, ONE OF MY FIRST INTERACTIONS WITH HIM WAS WITH THE DANGEROUS DOG HE PROVIDED THE NOTICE OF LIKE-- HE PROVIDED THE REQUEST FOR THE DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE WITNESS STATEMENT.
AND THEN I REACHED OUT TO YOU GUYS TO INFORM YOU OF THE DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION.
BARRINGTON: IS IT TRUE THAT YOU TOLD US THAT HE HAD REACHED OUT TO NO LESS THAN A DOZEN TIMES, AND THAT YOU NEEDED TO GET THIS INVESTIGATION COMPLETE BECAUSE HE WOULD BE CALLING YOU BACK AFTER THE 22ND MEETING? HAIR: I'M UNAWARE OF THAT.
NO, I ONLY HAD HIS INTERACTIONS WITH PERTAINING TO THE VICIOUS DOG CASE AND DANGEROUS DOG CASE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THANK YOU, OFFICER HAIR.
NEXT WITNESS, MS. PRINCE? TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CALL MR. ANDERSON.
AND IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND PLEASE ADVISE WHETHER YOU ARE SWORN BY THE CLERK.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: STEPHEN ANDERSON, I WAS SWORN.
AND DO I HAVE TO GIVE MY HOME ADDRESS? HARRISON W. POOLE: YES.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: 1783 NEIGHBOR STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU, MR. ANDERSON, FOR COMING TODAY.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED ON MAY 12TH? STEPHEN ANDERSON: YES.
FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THANKS FOR ALLOWING US TO HAVE THE TIME TO DO THIS.
AND ALSO I'M HERE PARTICULARLY TO SUPPORT ANIMAL CONTROL.
TERESA L. PRINCE: LET'S JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
I KIND OF RESPONDED TO HIS CHARACTER.
ON MAY 12, TUESDAY MORNING, WAS ABOUT 9:00 IN THE MORNING.
AND I WAS GETTING READY TO TAKE MY DOG ON THE SECOND WALK OF THE DAY.
I DID A LITTLE BIT EARLIER THAN NORMAL BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING READY TO RAIN FOR A COUPLE HOURS.
AND FROM ONE BLOCK FROM MY HOUSE, I WALKED DOWN A STREET.
AND THE BARRINGTONS' ARE THE SECOND HOUSE ON THE LEFT.
AND I WAS JUST PAST THEIR HOUSE ON ACROSS THE STREET IN FRONT OF A NATURAL AREA.
AND THE DOG WALKER WAS ABOUT THREE HOUSES DOWN COMING TOWARDS US.
AND THEN I HEARD LOTTIE, PROBABLY BOTH OF THEM, BUT DEFINITELY LOTTIE BARKING.
AND LOTTIE IMMEDIATELY EASILY BROKE LOOSE, AND AS I SAID, RAN ABOUT-- I'M GOING TO GUESS 50 YARDS.
GAVE ME TIME TO GRAB MY DOG LEASH, WHICH I HAD, BUT I PUT IT IN MY LEFT HAND AND GAVE ME THE RIGHT ARM TO FEND OFF OR WHATEVER.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF LOTTIE WAS GOING TO JUST STAND THERE AND BARK OR WHAT.
I'VE NEVER BEEN THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
THE FIRST THING SHE DID WAS BITE MY ARM.
SHE WANTED MY DOG'S HEAD AND NECK AREA.
SHE WAS 35 POUNDS AT THE TIME, GOLDENDOODLE.
AND FORTUNATELY, MY DOG-- ALL SHE WOULD DO WAS OFFER HER REAR END TO LOTTIE.
SO LOTTIE COULDN'T GET TO HER HEAD.
AND LOTTIE, THREE DIFFERENT TIMES, LUNGE, GOT MACY BY THE BACK OF HER HIDE AND THERE WERE NO LACERATIONS OR AVULSED TISSUES, BUT SHE WOULD GRAB AND PULL.
UP AND I PUNCHED, I PUSHED, I ATTEMPTED TO KICK ONCE.
[02:10:01]
I HAVE A VERY BAD RIGHT KNEE, SO THAT DIDN'T PROBABLY DO MUCH-- ANYTHING I COULD BECAUSE SHE WAS GOING TO KILL MY DOG.AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME, I REALIZED, I NEEDED TO HOLD ON TO LOTTIE, LET THE LEASH GO.
HOPE MY DOG WOULD RUN A LITTLE WAYS.
MACY RAN DOWN TO THE END OF THE BLOCK, KIND OF TOWARDS MY HOUSE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG I HELD ONTO LOTTIE.
AND DURING THE TIME, THAT'S WHEN SHE HAD MY ARM THE SECOND TIME.
AND WHAT'S DISAPPOINTING HERE IS THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT LOTTIE BITING THE DOG.
AND I HAD A VERY BLOODIED ARM THAT I DIDN'T WANT, AND.
AND SO IN ANY EVENT, LOTTIE, WHEN I LET GO, IT WAS LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH.
SHE WAS PROBABLY 10 OR 15 FEET FROM ME.
I MEAN, I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED IN THIS DAY AND TIME.
AND IN HINDSIGHT, I REMEMBER THINKING, I WASN'T SURPRISED BECAUSE, THAT DOG HAS A REPUTATION.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WELL, AND THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT WE JUST WANTED TO GET THE FACTS.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: SO IN ANY EVENT, I ASKED-- BARRINGTON: THERE'S NO ACCOMPLISHMENT OF REPUTATION.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: SO WE'LL SAY IT AGAIN, BRO.
TERESA L. PRINCE: WELL, AND SO THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YEAH LET'S KEEP-- HARRISON W. POOLE: RULE ON MY OBJECTION TO THAT.
WE'RE NOT HERE FOR ANY REPUTATION.
AND SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THE CITY CONSENTS TO THAT.
WE'RE HERE ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE OFFICERS, ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE TO PRESENT.
YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THE EVENT OF MAY 12.
WELL, WE JUST NEEDED TO HEAR THE ATTACK.
AND THEN COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED ON MAY 12.
AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND IT-- WHY YOU WAITED UNTIL JULY 09, IF THERE IS A REASON.
AND I KNOW IT'S PERSONAL, BUT JUST THE FACTS OF WHY YOU MAY HAVE WAITED UNTIL JULY 9.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: YEAH, MY WIFE WAS DYING OF LUNG CANCER, AND SHE PASSED AWAY THREE WEEKS AFTER THIS ATTACK.
AND THAT PERSONAL SITUATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JULY 9.
JULY 9 OCCURRED BECAUSE OF OUR SYSTEM.
NOW, I WILL ADMIT I WAS A LITTLE BUSY WITH MY WIFE IN LIFE, BUT IT WAS THE SYSTEM.
I WAS WAITING TO GET A POLICE REPORT.
I WAS ALSO WAITING TO GET ANIMAL CONTROL REPORT.
PROBABLY WITH THE ANIMAL CONTROL, THE REPORTING ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER LEAVING THAT PROBABLY COMPLICATED THINGS A LITTLE BIT, BUT I WAS WAITING ON THAT.
AND WHEN I GOT THOSE, LIKE THE POLICE ONE, I IMMEDIATELY, WHATEVER DATE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN, I WENT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SAID, HEY, THIS IS INACCURATE REPORT.
THE POINT IS, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY WIFE PASSING.
AND I AM A TYPE OF PERSON THAT I'M GOING TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING.
SO IF THINGS AREN'T HAPPENING WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I'LL MAKE A PHONE CALL.
AND IF I DON'T HEAR SOMETHING AFTER A COUPLE PHONE CALLS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE BUSY.
AND THESE LADIES ARE VERY BUSY, I'LL DO IT.
I THINK I PROBABLY THREE TIMES WENT TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY AND MAYBE THREE PHONE CALLS TOTAL OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE DELAY WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE WAITING TO GET REPORTS STEPHEN ANDERSON: YEAH.
AND ON THE SCREEN-- STEPHEN ANDERSON: SAME WITH THE ANIMAL CONTROL, THE ONE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL THAT I DID, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN JULY 9, I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATES.
WHEN I WENT AND I TALKED TO, I GUESS, IT HAD BEEN OFFICER HAIR.
AND SHE SAID, WELL, YOU NEED TO DO THIS FORM.
SO I DID THINGS AS I WAS TOLD, AND I KEPT THINGS ROLLING.
I WASN'T SITTING BACK DOING SOMETHING ELSE.
AND YOU MENTIONED THE FERNANDINA BEACH POLICE REPORT, I'M GOING TO BRING YOU A COPY OF IT.
I'LL JUST ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
A MOMENT AGO, YOU WERE TESTIFYING THAT ONCE YOU GOT THE POLICE REPORT,
[02:15:01]
YOU FELT THAT IT WAS INACCURATE.SO YOU WENT TO THE POLICE AND THEY ASKED YOU TO DO AN ADDENDUM.
IS THE ADDENDUM I HANDED YOU AN ACCURATE COPY OF WHAT YOU SUBMITTED? STEPHEN ANDERSON: YES, MA'AM.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND IN THOSE STATEMENTS, ARE YOU DESCRIBING THE-- IT'S JUST CLARIFYING AND DESCRIBING THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED? STEPHEN ANDERSON: CORRECT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND IN THAT, DO YOU DESCRIBE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR DOG WAS ATTACKED? STEPHEN ANDERSON: YES, I THINK THE LAST SENTENCE.
TERESA L. PRINCE: OK, THANK YOU.
THAT'S REALLY ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND IS THIS POLICE REPORT THAT HE'S REFERENCING IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD.
TERESA L. PRINCE: I DID BRING IT INTO THE RECORD.
IT IS NOT AN ITEM, AS WE'VE HEARD IN THE TESTIMONY THAT THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER RELIED UPON.
HOWEVER, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE.
SO WE OFFERED IT IN THE RECORD FOR THAT REASON.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN MY PACKET.
BARRINGTON: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, BECAUSE WE CAN'T QUESTION THE POLICE OFFICER, AND THERE ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT REPORTS OF WHAT OCCURRED ON THAT DAY.
EVEN THOUGH ANIMAL CONTROL AND THE POLICE OFFICER-- HARRISON W. POOLE: JUST WAIT.
BARRINGTON: BUT WE CAN'T QUESTION THE OFFICER.
THEY'RE NOT HERE, SO I OBJECT TO-- HARRISON W. POOLE: THIS IS THE POLICE REPORT THEN? BECAUSE THIS WAS THE-- I THOUGHT WAS THE CORRECTION TO IT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO THE ACTUAL POLICE REPORT ITSELF IS NOT-- TERESA L. PRINCE: NO.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AND THE MAGISTRATE WILL PROBABLY ADVISE YOU OF THIS AS WELL, BUT YOU WILL GET A TIME TO PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE IN YOUR CASE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BARRINGTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ANDERSON? BARRINGTON: JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PHYSICAL INJURIES THAT YOUR DOG SUSTAINED IN THIS SUPPOSED ATTACK? STEPHEN ANDERSON: PHYSICAL INJURIES WERE NOT VISIBLE.
SHE HAD NO PUNCTURE LACERATIONS.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO ANY INJURIES THAT WERE SUSTAINED TO THE DOG DURING THIS ALLEGED ATTACK OF THE DOG? STEPHEN ANDERSON: I HAVE LOTS OF PICTURES OF MY DOG.
THERE'S NONE WITH INJURIES, I JUST SAID THAT.
BARRINGTON: AND YOU SAID YOU WERE WAITING FOR COPIES OF THE POLICE REPORT BEFORE YOU MADE THE ADDITIONAL COMPLAINT ON JULY 9.
HOWEVER, YOU HAD THE REPORTS BY END OF MAY.
IS THAT CORRECT? STEPHEN ANDERSON: ARE YOU TELLING ME WHEN THEY-- BARRINGTON: I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: I DON'T KNOW.
THE OFFICER WAS ON VACATION WHEN I GOT THIS REPORT AND SAW WHAT SHE HAD SAID.
I WENT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
HE WAS ON VACATION, SO I HAD TO WAIT FOR HIM TO GET BACK TO DO THIS.
BARRINGTON: SO HE WAS ON VACATION TILL JULY? STEPHEN ANDERSON: HEY, LISTEN-- BARRINGTON: I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: I HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG HE WAS ON VACATION.
BARRINGTON: LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT-- STEPHEN ANDERSON: THE SYSTEM TAKES TIME.
OK, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DECORUM HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE MATTER.
I UNDERSTAND, I'M A DOG OWNER MYSELF.
I KNOW THEY BECOME PART OF YOUR FAMILY.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS A VERY TOUCHY.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME DECORUM.
AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE ASKING A QUESTION.
LET HIM FINISH ASKING THE QUESTION AND THEN LET HIM ANSWER IT BEFORE YOU START THE NEXT ONE.
THIS IS JUST TO DRAW OUT THE FACTS.
BARRINGTON: SO LET ME RESTATE THE QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY THEN, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: I'M NOT WORRIED.
BARRINGTON: WHEN DID YOU SUBMIT THESE REPORTS TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION? STEPHEN ANDERSON: I DON'T HAVE THESE ANSWERS.
FIRST OFF, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S PERTINENT.
IF YOU CAN SHARE WITH, LET ME KNOW.
I DON'T HAVE THESE DATES, BRO.
I HAD THIS CRAP GOING ON, SO I DON'T KNOW.
I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW THE DATES.
BARRINGTON: IT WAS IN MAY WHEN THE FIRST MEETING AND YOU HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS.
[02:20:02]
WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAD OCCURRED BEFORE JULY 9 THAT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED-- THAT MIGHT HAVE PUSHED YOU TO GO AFTER THIS DESIGNATION? STEPHEN ANDERSON: NO, NOT THAT I KNOW.BARRINGTON: DID YOU HIRE AN ATTORNEY, AND DID YOU MAKE A CLAIM? STEPHEN ANDERSON: DOES THIS-- DO I HAVE TO ANSWER THAT? HARRISON W. POOLE: ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE.
AND WHAT I WANTED WAS TO GET REIMBURSEMENT FOR MY MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS, MY ANTIBIOTIC, MY TETANUS, AND BANDAGE, WHATEVER.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE-- YOU HAVE A CLAUSE, NO ANIMAL BITES ARE ON YOUR POLICY.
BARRINGTON: SO YOU HAD GOTTEN THAT DENIAL FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE YOU WENT AFTER THIS DESIGNATION? STEPHEN ANDERSON: I DON'T KNOW.
WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CITY, WERE APPROACHING ONE ANOTHER ON THAT STREET, AND YOU SAID YOU WERE PASSED THE HOUSE AND THE DOGS WERE BARKING, DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO THE SITTER? DID YOU YELL ANYTHING AT THE SITTER? STEPHEN ANDERSON: NO.
NO, THERE WAS NO WORDS UNTIL YOUR DOG STARTED ATTACKING ME AND MY DOG.
BARRINGTON: SO BEFORE THIS OCCURRED, YOU WEREN'T YELLING, "CONTROL YOUR DOG!" STEPHEN ANDERSON: NO.
BARRINGTON: NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ANY REDIRECT FROM THE CITY? MR. BARRINGTON WILL DO WITHOUT THAT EXTRA COMMENTARY.
THERE IS A DECORUM IN THIS ROOM, AND I WILL NOT ALLOW THAT.
TERESA L. PRINCE: AT THIS TIME, THE CITY WILL REST.
WE WILL REVIEW IN CLOSING, RESERVE TIME FOR CLOSING TO JUST REVIEW THE DEFINITION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL AND WHETHER OR NOT WE MAKE OUR ARGUMENTS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. ANDERSON, YOU CAN RETURN TO YOUR SEAT.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: OK, THANK YOU.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BARRINGTON.
BARRINGTON: YES, SIR? HARRISON W. POOLE: DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES THAT YOU'D LIKE TO CALL? BARRINGTON: JUST OUR OURSELVES.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT MS. BARRINGTON, CAN YOU HEAR US OK? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): YES.
AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GIVING IN THIS MATTER IS UNDER OATH, CORRECT? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): YES.
HARRISON W. POOLE: ALL RIGHT, SO I THINK MR. BARRINGTON HAS SOME QUESTIONS HE'D YOU'D LIKE TO ASK OF YOU.
WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU HAVE SOME TESTIMONY YOU'D LIKE TO GET FROM HER, AND YOU'D ALSO HAVE SOME TESTIMONY YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE.
SO FIRST ASK HER QUESTIONS AND THEN YOU'LL BE GIVEN A SEPARATE OPPORTUNITY.
I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE IT CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING, WE WERE NOT WITNESSES TO THE INCIDENT.
SO WE CANNOT PROVIDE ANY TESTIMONY AROUND THE ALLEGED INCIDENT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTAND.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY? TERESA L. PRINCE: WELL, NO.
OK, I'LL JUST SAY, WHEN IT'S MY TURN.
BARRINGTON: I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MELISSA, AND IT'S IN OUR CONVERSATIONS AND INTERACTION WITH ANIMAL CONTROL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CENTRAL PART OF WHY WE'RE ACTUALLY HERE, IS THE PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY ANIMAL CONTROL, IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? SO MELISSA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE CALL THAT WE GOT FROM OFFICER HAIR ON AROUND JULY 15.
MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): YES.
SO BASICALLY SHE CALLED AND SHE SAID THAT MR. ANDERSON HAD CONTACTED HER OR CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT, AND SHE WAS NOW GOING TO BE THE OFFICER TO TAKE THIS OVER, BECAUSE THE OFFICER WHO WORKED THE CASE WAS NO LONGER WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
AND SO SHE BASICALLY TOLD US THAT WE NEEDED TO COME IN AND SCHEDULE A TIME IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS IN ORDER TO HAVE A MEETING WITH HER AND TALK ABOUT THIS.
IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING AT THIS TIME THAT WE COULD BRING THINGS WITH US.
SO IN THE NEXT WEEK-- AND WE WERE ACTUALLY OUT OF TOWN WHEN SHE MADE THE PHONE CALL.
AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS GOING TO BE A WEEK OR SO LATER.
WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD BRING THINGS SUCH AS CHARACTER STATEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ABOUT LOTTIE FROM OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN AROUND HER.
AND THEN THOSE THINGS WE WOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THEN THOSE THINGS WOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
SHE DID RECOUNT AT THAT TIME THAT THEY WERE KIND OF BACKED UP.
BUT THEN MR. ANDERSON CALLED REPEATEDLY, AND SO SHE REALLY JUST NEEDED TO HURRY UP AND GET THIS DONE
[02:25:03]
AND GET THIS OFF HER PLATE.AND SO THIS WAS JUST A VERY CASUAL CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE.
SO WE SCHEDULED THAT MEETING FOR THE 22ND.
AND SO THEN-- WELL, DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP GOING OR JUST.
AND SO WHEN WE ARRIVED ON THE 22ND TO HAVE THAT MEETING WITH OFFICER HAIR, CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED THAT DAY? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): YES, SO WE HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS IN A FILE, AND WE SAT DOWN WITH HER, AND THEN SHE BASICALLY PROCEEDED TO TELL US THAT NONE OF THOSE THINGS, SHE COULDN'T TAKE ANY OF THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION.
THAT BASICALLY SHE WOULD HAVE TO ONLY GO BY THE WITNESS STATEMENT.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE WEREN'T PREPARED FOR THAT.
AND SO WE DID NOT HAVE THE WITNESS STATEMENT BEYOND MAYBE SHE ALREADY HAS A POLICE REPORT AND SHE ALREADY HAD THE INITIAL ANIMAL CONTROL.
AND SO WE BROUGHT WHAT WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE HAD FOR US TO BRING.
BUT SHE BASICALLY TOLD US THAT IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH, OR THIS ISN'T WHAT I NEED.
I CAN'T TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT.
I HAVE TO GO BY THESE ORIGINAL STATEMENTS.
AND SO HERE IS THE DESIGNATION.
SHE GAVE IT TO US ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND ASKED US TO SIGN IT.
SO WE BASICALLY WERE ASKING HER THEN HOW DO WE APPEAL IT.
AND SHE SAID, WELL, I'LL DO APPEAL IT.
SHE GAVE US THE FORM WHERE WE COULD GO BACK TO THE OTHER WITNESS.
SHE SAID THE WITNESS NEEDS TO WRITE HER SIDE OF THE STORY, OR WHAT HAPPENED ON THE PIECE OF PAPER AND HAVE IT NOTARIZED.
AND THEN THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
BUT THEN SHE PROCEEDED TO SAY-- THEN SHE PROCEEDED TO GIVE US THAT DECISION ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER.
AND THEN SHE SAID-- WE BASICALLY SAID, WELL, HOW DO WE APPEAL THIS? AND SHE SAID, THERE IS NO APPEAL.
AND THEN SHE ALSO MADE THE COMMENT-- WELL, AND THEN SHE JUST SAID, BASICALLY THERE IS NO APPEAL.
AND SO WE WERE VERY FRUSTRATED AT THE TIME AND THE DIRECTOR CAME OUT AND WAS LIKE, BASICALLY, THIS IS THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION.
AND WE SAID, WELL, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE ELECT.
HE WAS LIKE, THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS.
SO WE WERE TOLD BY, NOT ONLY OFFICER HAIR, AND ALSO THE DIRECTOR, THAT WE COULD NOT APPEAL THIS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T, QUOTE UNQUOTE, "SOLVED IN A TIMELY MANNER." I MEAN, IT TOOK PEOPLE FROM THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY GOING AND MEETING WITH THEM.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MS. BARRINGTON? BARRINGTON: I CAN COVER THAT DURING MY TESTIMONY.
BUT I IMAGINE YOU WANT TO-- TERESA L. PRINCE: NO, I WAS GOING TO ASK HER QUESTIONS.
NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO CONSENT TO THE FACT THAT WE-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TOLD.
I HAVE NONE OF THAT INFORMATION, BUT I KNOW BASED ON THE INFORMATION THE CITY RECEIVED, WHICH IS WHY WE CONSIDERED IT A TIMELY APPEAL, JUST FOR ANY KIND OF CONFUSION THAT THERE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN, WE FELT IT WAS FAIR.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SO WE DON'T NEED TO GET HER BACK ON THE LINE FOR ANY FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION? TERESA L. PRINCE: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
DID YOU WANT OR NEED TO GET HER BACK ON THE LINE TO ASK ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? BARRINGTON: NO, I THINK THAT'S FINE.
I REALLY JUST WANTED HER TO TALK TO THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WITH OFFICER HAIR.
SO I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR HER.
DID YOU HAVE ANY TESTIMONY FROM YOURSELF THAT YOU WISH TO PROVIDE AT THIS TIME? BARRINGTON: YES.
AND I'LL KEEP THIS VERY SHORT.
I WILL SAY THAT-- AND YOU GUYS PROBABLY FEEL THIS ON A DAILY BASIS, IS THAT WORKING WITH THE CITY IS NOT VERY EASY AT TIMES.
AND TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, EVEN JUST GETTING THIS SESSION SCHEDULED WAS A HERCULEAN EFFORT.
BUT WHAT WE EXPERIENCED WITH THE PROCESS OF BEING TOLD THAT WE WERE GOING TO COME IN, PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER INVESTIGATION, TO FIND OUT ONLY THAT SHE HAD ALREADY COMPLETED HER INVESTIGATION.
SHE ALREADY HAD A DECISION MADE BEFORE WE SHOWED UP THAT DAY, AND SHE PROCEEDED TO PUT THAT FORM IN FRONT OF US AND ASK US TO SIGN IT.
MY OPINION ON THAT IS JUST THAT IT LACKS PROCESS, AND PROCESS IS IMPORTANT IN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.
[02:30:04]
I LED A FORENSICS EDISCOVERY TEAM FOR MANY YEARS, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE VIABLE EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE USED AND HOW YOU HAVE TO PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE AND HOW YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT.AND THEY HAVE NO FORMAL CHECKLISTS THAT THEY USE IN CONDUCTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
THEY DON'T HAVE FORMAL TRAINING AROUND IT.
OFFICER HAIR TOLD US THIS WAS THE VERY FIRST ONE THAT SHE HAD EVER DONE, AND SHE DIDN'T REALIZE WHEN SHE MADE HER DECISION THAT THERE WAS NO APPEAL PROCESS.
BUT SHE MADE THE DECISION ANYWAY.
AND SO WE JUST FEEL THAT THE PROCESS USED IN MAKING THIS DESIGNATION LACKED THE PROPER DUE PROCESS AND THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR AN INVESTIGATION, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SHE NEVER SPOKE TO THE OTHER WITNESS.
SHE ONLY TOOK ONE SIDE OF THE INCIDENT INTO CONSIDERATION AND MADE NO ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE OTHER EYEWITNESS IN THE CASE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND THAT OTHER EYEWITNESS BEING THE DOG WALKER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, MS. PRINCE? TERESA L. PRINCE: NO.
STEPHEN ANDERSON: CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? TERESA L. PRINCE: I MEAN, THAT'S UP TO THE MAGISTRATE, BUT WE'RE THE PARTY.
I MEAN, HE'S APPEALING TO THE CITY.
SO THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE MAGISTRATE, I'M SORRY.
I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS.
DO YOU WANT ME TO GO UPSTAIRS? YEAH, I WAS GOING AROUND THERE TO FIX THAT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: SHE MAY BE TRYING TO CALL.
TERESA L. PRINCE: OH, SHE MAY BE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: IS 077 HER UMBER? BARRINGTON: YES.
TERESA L. PRINCE: YEAH, THAT'S HER.
HARRISON W. POOLE: HELLO, IS THIS MS. BARRINGTON? HELLO, IS THIS MS. BARRINGTON? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): YES, I GOT CUT OFF.
WELL, WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE DROPPED YOU, BUT YOUR HUSBAND ADVISED US THAT HE WAS GOING TO CONTINUE ON.
SO HE IS KIND OF SUMMING UP HIS TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT.
WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED-- TERESA L. PRINCE: OOPS, SORRY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED ME TO HEAR FROM YOU ON, MS. BARRINGTON? MELISSA BARRINGTON(ON PHONE): NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
HARRISON W. POOLE: AND DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER.
I APOLOGIZE, MS. BARRINGTON, BUT I'M GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO GET HER BACK ON THE LINE.
THE PREVIOUS OFFICER, THAT WAS OFFICER HALL, DID MEET WITH THE DOG WALKER, CORRECT? BARRINGTON: THAT'S CORRECT.
MATTER OF FACT, WE WERE IN AFRICA AT THE TIME THAT THIS HAPPENED.
AND SO WE GOT A TEXT FROM THE-- IT WAS LATE AT NIGHT.
WE GOT A TEXT FROM THE SITTER AND SAID, CAN YOU CONTACT ME? SO SHE NOTIFIED US RIGHT AWAY.
THE POLICE AND ANIMAL CONTROL WERE ON THEIR WAY TO THE HOUSE.
AND WE ACTUALLY GOT ON OUR RING CAMERA SO THAT WE COULD SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND THEY INTERVIEWED HER ON OUR FRONT PORCH.
SO IT WAS OFFICER HALL AND THE POLICE OFFICER TOGETHER, STANDING THERE INTERVIEWING HER ABOUT THE INCIDENT.
AND THAT'S WHY I POINT OUT THAT YOU HAD TWO PEOPLE LISTENING TO THE SAME STORY AND CAME UP WITH VERY DIFFERENT FACTS THAT THEY WROTE INTO THEIR REPORTS.
AND A LOT OF THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEING DISPUTED BY MR. ANDERSON AND SOME OF HIS FOLLOW-UPS. IT WASN'T THE DOG WALKER GIVING INACCURATE FACTS.
IT WAS THE FACT THAT THESE OFFICERS WERE THERE AND THEY JUST CAME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS FROM EACH OTHER, LISTENING TO THE SAME STORY.
WE WITNESSED THAT WITH OUR OWN EYES AND SAW THEM INTERVIEW HER RIGHT THERE ON OUR FRONT PORCH.
HARRISON W. POOLE: WAS THAT RECORDING AVAILABLE? IS THAT SOMETHING-- BARRINGTON: WE WEREN'T RECORDING IT.
WE WERE JUST WATCHING IT-- HARRISON W. POOLE: AS IT WAS OCCURRING? BARRINGTON: THAT WAS AS IT WAS OCCURRING.
SO WE WERE JUST WATCHING THE LIVE AND SO IT DOESN'T KEEP THOSE.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I UNDERSTAND.
AND DID YOU EVER OBTAIN A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE DOG SITTER? BARRINGTON: WE DID.
BUT WE WERE TOLD THAT IT NEEDED TO HAVE THAT--
[02:35:02]
SHE COULDN'T JUST SIGN IT, THAT IT NEEDED TO HAVE THAT NOTARY ON IT.AND SINCE SHE LIVES IN NORTH CAROLINA, JUST IF IT HELPED YOU UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, WE USED A SERVICE CALLED TRUSTEDHOUSESITTERS.
MANY PEOPLE INSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY USE USED THIS SERVICE, AND THEY MATCH PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN WATCHING DOGS WITH PEOPLE WHO NEED SOMEONE TO WATCH THE DOG.
AND SO WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHERE SHE CAME FROM.
IT WAS JUST THAT SHE MATCHED WITH THE DATES THAT WE NEEDED AND WHERE WE LIVE.
AND SO WE HAD USED HER PREVIOUSLY FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AS A TRIAL RUN, BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO BE GONE FOR THREE MONTHS.
AND WE DID A SHORT RUN WITH HER.
AND SO WE DECIDED TO USE HER FOR THE LONGER SIT.
BUT WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO GET HER TO HAVE THAT NOTARIZED, SHE KEPT GOING BACK TO THE LANGUAGE ON THE FORM THAT'S REQUIRED FOR A FLORIDA NOTARY PUBLIC.
AND SHE'S LIKE, I DON'T LIVE IN FLORIDA.
SO WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SUBMIT THAT WITNESS TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THAT FACT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: THAT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE FORM THAT YOU DID HAVE SIGNED BY HER, BUT NOT NOTARIZED, WAS REJECTED BY ANIMAL CONTROL? BARRINGTON: THAT WAS WHAT OFFICER HAIR TOLD US WHEN SHE GAVE US THE FORM.
SHE SAID IT NEEDS TO BE ON THIS FORM.
AND THAT WAS THE-- WE JUST READ THE BACK PAGE OF THAT FORM.
AND IT REQUIRES A FLORIDA NOTARY.
HARRISON W. POOLE: I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS, DID YOU HAVE ONE THAT WAS SIGNED BY THE DOG SITTER, BUT NOT NOTARIZED BY A FLORIDA NOTARY THAT YOU TRIED TO GIVE TO OFFICER HAIR AND SHE SAID, I CAN'T TAKE THAT? BARRINGTON: NO, BECAUSE WE WERE JUST TOLD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT IT NEEDED TO BE NOTARIZED.
AND SO WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO GO BACK AND FORTH WITH HER UNTIL THE POINT WHERE I THINK WE PISSED HER OFF, AND THEN SHE STOPPED RESPONDING TO US AT ALL, ALTOGETHER.
AND I THINK EVEN MS. PRINCE HAS HAD A DIFFICULT TIME.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? TERESA L. PRINCE: NO, YOU CLARIFIED WHAT I HAD.
THE STATEMENT OF THE DOGWALKER WAS NEVER HANDED IN AND REJECTED.
IT WAS THEY JUST DIDN'T PROVIDE ONE.
AND THEN I DO HAVE A FEW CLOSING STATEMENTS, BUT I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
MR. BARRINGTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU WISH TO CALL IN THIS MATTER? BARRINGTON: NO.
DO WE HAVE ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO BE HEARD ON THIS MATTER? ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT, SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO FINAL ARGUMENTS.
AND SO I WILL HEAR FIRST FROM CITY STAFF.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU, MAGISTRATE POOLE.
WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN THE CITY'S CODE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE TESTIMONY, WAS THE BASIS OF THE VICIOUS DOG DESIGNATION UNDER 18-2.
THE DEFINITION OF VICIOUS ANIMAL HERE MEANS AN ANIMAL THAT ATTACKS, BITES, STRIKES, OR INJURES HUMAN BEINGS OR OTHER ANIMALS WITHOUT PROVOCATION.
TO THAT END, THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT SHE RELIED ON THAT PORTION OF THE TESTIMONY AND THE UNPROVOKED ATTACKING OF THE DOG AGAINST LOTTIE, AGAINST THE OTHER DOG, MR. ANDERSON'S DOG.
OFFICER HAIR DID ESTABLISH FOR THE RECORD THAT SHE DOES HAVE TRAINING IN DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH ARE, AS STATED IN THE RECORD, GOVERNED BY STATUTE, BUT AS SHE STATED IN THE RECORD, VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE.
AND EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS THE FIRST VICIOUS ANIMAL, SHE ESTABLISHED THAT SHE HAS FAMILIARITY WITH HOW TO DO THE DANGEROUS DOG AND TRAINING ON THAT.
WE DID, JUST FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE MAGISTRATE'S BENEFIT, WE ALSO ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE DOG SITTER AND I LEFT SEVERAL MESSAGES AND SHE DID NOT RETURN MY CALLS.
WE DID TRY AND INVESTIGATE THAT.
WE ALSO TALKED TO THE POLICE OFFICER, BUT IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICER HAIR, SHE DIDN'T RELY ON THE POLICE STATEMENTS, WHEN I ASKED HER AND WHAT WE ASKED HER TODAY.
AND SO THEREFORE, I DIDN'T ENTER THAT INTO EVIDENCE.
[02:40:04]
AND OF COURSE, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS ON VACATION IN MEXICO.BUT AGAIN, MY INTERVIEW OF HER AND HER WITNESS STATEMENT TODAY, AND HER TESTIMONY TODAY, WAS THAT SHE RELIED ON THE CASE DETAIL, THE WITNESS STATEMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT SHE WENT ON.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE BASED THE CASE ON.
AND WITH THAT, AGAIN, WE DO FEEL THAT IT MEETS THE DEFINITION THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE PROCESS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS A VICIOUS ANIMAL AND THEY GAVE NOTICE.
AND THAT MEANS THAT THE DOG WILL EITHER HAVE TO BE MUZZLED WHEN IT IS OUTSIDE, OR KEPT INSIDE WHENEVER THEY'RE IN THE CITY LIMITS.
AND UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR US, THE CITY RESTS.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MR. BARRINGTON, FINAL ARGUMENTS? BARRINGTON: SIR, OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ANIMAL CONTROL WAS NOT PROPERLY TRAINED TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION.
MATTER OF FACT, IT WENT BACK AND FORTH MANY TIMES ON WHETHER IT WAS ABOUT THE ATTACK OF THE COMPLAINANT OR WAS IT ABOUT THE ATTACK OF HIS DOG.
BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO THE ATTACK OF THE DOG, OTHER THAN ONE PERSON SAYING THAT IT HAPPENED.
AND I POINTED THAT OUT AS THAT'S A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO SET.
IS THAT ALL SOMEONE HAS TO DO IS CALL AND SAY THAT A DOG ATTACKED ME OR MY DOG, AND THAT'S ENOUGH TO POTENTIALLY GET A DOG DEEMED AS DANGEROUS.
IF YOU JUST WALK THROUGH ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IN FERNANDINA BEACH ON ANY GIVEN MORNING, YOU'LL SEE DOGS THAT WALK NEAR EACH OTHER AND THEY PULL AND THEY BARK AT EACH OTHER.
MR. ANDERSON'S OWN DOG BARKS WHEN IT'S ON HIS FRONT PORCH AS YOU WALK BY.
AND SO I DON'T DEEM MR. ANDERSON'S DOG AS DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS, BECAUSE IT BARKS AND LUNGES AT THE GATE THAT IT'S BEHIND.
YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL, THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU'RE SETTING HERE OF WHAT REALLY IS A DANGEROUS DOG.
AND TO MR. ANDERSON'S OWN TESTIMONY, HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
HE PROVOKED THE DOG BY HITTING, KICKING, PUSHING, SHOVING AT THE DOG.
AND SO HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND IN A TIME, YOU MAKE DECISIONS.
AND MAYBE YOU LOOK BACK ON THOSE DECISIONS, AND THEY WERE THE RIGHT DECISION OR THEY WEREN'T THE RIGHT DECISION.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROVOCATION COMES INTO PLAY HERE, IS THAT MR. ANDERSON WAS PROVOKING THE DOG.
THE DOG WAS NOT GOING TO ATTACK HIS DOG.
HE MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND SO I CAN JUST TELL YOU LOTTIE IS 11 YEARS OLD.
WE'VE HAD HER SINCE SHE WAS EIGHT WEEKS.
THERE'S NOTHING VICIOUS ABOUT HER.
WE EVEN HAD MEMBERS OF OUR OWN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION COME AND VISIT THE DOG, AND THEY WERE LIKE, THIS IS CRAZY.
SO WE JUST ASK THAT FOR THESE REASONS, THIS BE OVERTURNED, THIS DESIGNATION.
YOU SHOULD KNOW WE HAVE SINCE MOVED OUT OF THE CITY LIMITS.
THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS BEHIND THAT.
BUT WHAT IT PROHIBITS IS IF WE WANT TO COME AND CAMP AT FORT CLINCH STATE PARK, WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT MUZZLING OUR DOG IN FLORIDA HEAT.
I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A SOLUTION THAT COMES FROM THE HUMANE SOCIETY.
THAT'S HOW THEY COOL THEIR BODY TEMPERATURE, IS THROUGH THEIR MOUTH.
AND TO HAVE TO MUZZLE HER IN FLORIDA HEAT.
HARRISON W. POOLE: MS. PRINCE, DID YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT DUE PROCESS OR THE TRAINING FOR ANIMAL CONTROL? TERESA L. PRINCE: THE RESPONSE IS THAT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER HAIR TESTIFIED TO THE TRAINING THAT SHE WENT TO, WHERE SHE WENT, WHAT IT COVERED, AND THAT SHE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH DANGEROUS DOG THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTES, IT'S A MUCH HIGHER BURDEN AND IT'S ALSO A HIGHER PENALTY.
THOSE ANIMALS CAN BE EUTHANIZED.
SO I BELIEVE THAT OFFICER HAIR HAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE RECORD, UNDER QUESTIONING HER EXPERIENCE.
AND BECAUSE OF THE STATEMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE BARRINGTONS',
[02:45:01]
THE CITY DID RESTRICT ANY TESTIMONY TO JUST THE ATTACKING OF LOTTIE ON THE ANDERSON'S DOG.AND NO TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE ABOUT ANY OTHER-- OTHER EVENTS OCCURRED THAT DAY.
THERE WAS A BITING THAT WAS REFERENCED IN THIS HEARING.
AND WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THAT IS THAT THE ANIMAL CONTROL GIVE NOTICE TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
SO THAT WAS A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS.
AND WE DID NOT BRING THAT IN HERE.
SO WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE UNPROVOKED ATTACKING OF THE ANIMAL.
HARRISON W. POOLE: OK ANYTHING ELSE THAT I NEED TO KNOW FROM THE PARTIES BEFORE I PROCEED TO MAKE MY RULING? I'M GOING TO START WITH JUST MAKING A FEW GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I'M A DOG OWNER MYSELF, AND DO NOT TAKE ANY OF THESE LIGHTLY.
THEY ARE MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY.
THEY ARE YOUR FUR BABIES, AND I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT.
IN REGARDS TO MR. BARRINGTON'S COMMENT THAT ALL IT TAKES IS ONE ALLEGATION FROM ONE PERSON AND NO OTHER EYEWITNESSES, THAT'S TRUE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T TAKE LIGHTLY.
BUT I'VE BEEN THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR NASSAU COUNTY FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, AND NOW FOR THE CITY FOR A YEAR.
AND I PRESIDED OVER NUMEROUS DANGEROUS DOG CASES.
AND THOSE CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES IT'S A DOG THAT GETS LOOSE, AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT SAW ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED IS THE VICTIM IN THAT CASE.
AND SO JUST BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WAS IS ABLE TO TESTIFY OR NO ONE ELSE SAW, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SOMETHING DIDN'T OCCUR.
AND SO, THE STANDARDS THAT I HAVE TO LOOK AT IS WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE, WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND WEIGHING THOSE EVIDENCE.
AND I THINK YOU WOULD JOIN ME IN AGREEING THAT I'D LOVE TO HAVE THE DOG SIT OR HEAR OR A STATEMENT FROM THE DOG SITTER TO GET THAT OTHER EYEWITNESS.
BUT BECAUSE OF A VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT SHE JUST HASN'T BEEN AVAILABLE AND WEREN'T ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND I WISH THAT THERE HAD BEEN PERHAPS A STATEMENT WRITTEN BY HER THAT WASN'T NOTARIZED, THAT WAS PRESENTED AND REJECTED.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION FOR IT AND HOW THAT CAME ABOUT.
I DO NOTE THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE DO HAVE THAT WERE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD, WE DO HAVE OFFICER HALL'S REPORT THAT SAYS SHE DID SPEAK TO THE DOG SITTER, WHO EXPLAINED THAT THE DOG PULLED THE LEASH, GOT OUT OF HER CONTROL, AND RAN ACROSS THE STREET AND WENT AFTER ANOTHER DOG.
AND THE MAN TRIED TO BREAK IT UP.
SO THAT'S AS CLOSE AS ANYTHING FROM HER.
I DON'T HAVE THE RECORDING FROM THE INTERVIEW ON THE FRONT PORCH, AND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS I WISH I HAD THE BENEFIT OF.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT IS PRESENTED FOR ME AND WHAT IS IN THE RECORD.
AND BASED UPON THAT, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT LOTTIE DID GO AFTER THE OTHER DOG.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS DOG, BUT IT IS AN ANIMAL THAT EITHER ATTACKED A BIT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY INJURIES, BUT IT STILL FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THAT VICIOUS DOG AS OUR ORDINANCES DEFINE IT.
SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO DENY THE APPEAL WITH RESERVATIONS, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS THE ABSOLUTE JUST OUTCOME IN THIS, BUT IT'S THE ONE THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS.
AND I DON'T GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH LAWS THAT I FOLLOW AND WHICH LAWS I ENFORCE.
I'VE GOT TO MAKE A JUDGMENT HERE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEFORE ME AND MY INTERPRETATION OF OUR LAWS.
AND SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR IT.
SO I WILL ENTER A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THAT IN THE COMING DAYS.
AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE GET A COPY OF THAT.
DO THE PARTIES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED ANY CLARIFICATION? ALL RIGHT.
SO WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE CASES WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
AND SO WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN.
TERESA L. PRINCE: THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.