Barking dispute lands in court

Superior justices uphold ruling to fine neighbor for banging pans at noisy dogs

An Allegheny Township resident has found out it can be expensive trying to make more noise than the neighbors' dogs.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court on Thursday upheld fines of $400 against township resident Barbara Little, who on July 5, 2021, became so frustrated with constant arf, arf, arf coming from the properties of at least two neighbors that she spent the day in a chair banging a pot and pan, which, she maintained, was one way to quiet the pooches.

According to the Superior Court opinion, the 82-year-old stated the neighbors' dogs "are barking all the time, so if I bang the pans,the dogs quit barking because it hurts their ears."

Unfortunately for Little, the pot-and-pan banging also hurt the ears of the dogs' owners and on two occasions during the evening and late night (6:25 p.m. and 11:22 p.m.) of July 5, they complained to police.

On both occasions, Little was cited under state law for harassment and disorderly conduct -- making unreasonable noise.

After a hearing before a Magisterial District Judge, Little was found guilty.

Through her Hollidaysburg attorney, Phillip O. Robertson, Little appealed her case to the Blair County Court of Common Pleas.

In June of 2022, Blair County President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle found her not guilty on the harassment charges but guilty of making unreasonable noise. Little was fined a total of $400.

Robertson next appealed to a three-judge panel of Superior Court Judges, which upheld Doyle's ruling in its opinion on Thursday.

According to Doyle, the testimony showed that Little had longstanding "troubles" concerning the barking dog issue and police have been called several times over the years.

The Blair judge stated, "The hourslong repetitive beating and banging of a cooking pot or pan in her front lawn until 11:22 p.m. creates unreasonable noise not fitting or proper with respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community," and is "inconsistent with neighborhood tolerance or standards."

The Superior Court panel, consisting of Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Judith F. Olson and Mary P. Murray stated they found "no error or abuse of discretion with Doyle's opinion."

But, Little's lawyer complained the prosecution of his client seemed a bit unfair.

Allegheny Township has no noise ordinance, which means that while his client was prosecuted for the noise she made under a Pennsylvania disorderly conduct statute, there is no ordinance requiring the neighbors to quell the enthusiasm of their barking dogs.

The Superior Court took note of the disparity.

A township police officer told Little she should consult an attorney, according to a footnote in the appeals court opinion.

The Superior Court opinion stated the officer had provided "sound advice" to Little.

The court also suggested she could work toward the passage of a noise ordinance for the township.

The footnote concluded, "If for nothing more than the sake of the dogs' ears, we hope that any discord going forward can be resolved amicably."

What happens next? Allegheny Township in March advertised that its April 20 agenda includes a vote on a noise ordinance.