Whose Pet is Safe with This Kind of “Animal Control”?
Minneapolis Declares Dog “Potentially Dangerous” After Having Apparently Hurting No One or Nothing
Published 09/23/2011 05:50:17 PM
by Mike Fry
I knew it would happen. I predicted it would happen. And, now, it is happening. A new ordinance passed in 2010 in the City of Minneapolis to make it easier for Animal Control to declare dogs either “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous”, even if the dogs have, technically, done nothing wrong, is going to court. Animal Ark’s legal team had previously concluded that the new ordinance was overtly unconstitutional.
The ordinance, among other issues, described so-called “aggressive” dog behavior in terms our legal team believed were illegal due to what is termed the “void for vagueness” doctrine. This doctrine states that, “If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague.”
The language is pretty clear. If a law does not clearly indicate what behavior is prohibited by the law, in specific, objective terms, the law is unconstitutional. The new Minneapolis ordinance allowed Animal Control to deem any dog “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” even if it had never bitten, and based entirely on testimony of a so-called “victim” (even if there was no injury).
The change in law followed several low-profile cases where MACC had tried to deem friendly pets “dangerous”. In the most extreme case, MACC reportedly issued a “destruct order” for a 12-week-old Golden Retriever puppy. A young girl had been playing with the puppy and was running in circles with the puppy chasing her. The girl tripped and fell on the puppy.
A minor injury resulted. Adults present when this event occurred reported that no one really knew if the injury was a result of a bite from the puppy, or from the child falling. Yet, reportedly, the City of Minneapolis issued a “confiscation” order for the puppy.
Fortunately, the puppy’s owner lived in another municipality. So the City of Minneapolis needed to send a request to that city to get the puppy. When police officers arrived at the home of the “guilty” “golden retriever” they were reportedly shocked to find a small, playful puppy that had a “dangerous dog” declaration on its head. Fortunately, the officers refused to confiscate the puppy. This story was corroborated by the officers.
A similar story was also reported to Animal Ark, that had an unfortunate ending. A young girl was playing fetch with a young lab at a family celebration. They played for at least a couple of hours, and no aggression was observed from the dog. However, following the play session, the parents of the girl noticed a small mark on the palm of her hand. When questioned about it, the girl indicated the mark was caused by the stick she had been throwing for the dog.
In spite of the explanation, the girl’s parents filed a complaint with Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. In spite of the best efforts of the owner of the dog, it was reportedly killed by the City of Minneapolis as a “Dangerous Dog”.
There was another, more public, case of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control issuing a kill order on a dog that had simply barked at the mail carrier. I am not making that up.
I first learned of that case before I knew about the others. One morning, I received a call from a television news reporter. She described the situation as one in which a medium-sized dog got out of the house as the mail carrier was delivering mail. A child in the home had failed to latch the screen door, and the dog easily pushed it open. The mail carrier turned and began to run away from the barking dog (something mail carriers are supposed to be trained to never do… because doing so can cause a dog to chase and bite). The dog followed the mail carrier a short distance, still barking, but did not bite. The dog’s owner quickly came outside and brought the dog inside.
Not knowing about the other potentially problematic cases of Minneapolis Animal Care and Control over-reacting to what appear to be normal dog behaviors, I told the reporter that I didn’t believe the story and that I could not comment until I personally verified it with the City of Minneapolis.
I hung up and called Minneapolis Animal Control. I spoke with Animal Control Officer Tom Doty, who personally verified the facts in the case.
The dog, that had done nothing other than bark at the mail carrier, was being held at Minneapolis Animal Control, labeled as “dangerous” and an order to have the dog destroyed was in place. The owner of the dog was appealing. I was speechless.
When news of the story broke, I began receiving complaints from other Minneapolis residents about the City confiscating and killing their dogs for behaviors that did not meet the legal definition of “dangerous”. Some of the stories were corroborated by others. The cases referenced above were some of the most egregious.
Fast forward to 2010: MACC uses another high-profile case – in which a mail carrier was actually bitten and injured by a dog – to push through a new ordinance that allowed them to deem animals “Dangerous” or “Potentially Dangerous”, even if they have never bitten anyone or anything. From my perspective, they appear to have been implementing an ordinance to try to make “legal” what they had apparently been doing for quite a while.
In the current case, a dog, that, even according to Minneapolis Animal Care and Control Records, does not appear to have bitten any person or animal, is being declared “potentially dangerous”. Predictably a law suit is coming forward.
When the new, unconstitutional ordinance was being considered by the city of Minneapolis, we wrote letters and sent emails to various City officials objecting to the ordinance on Constitutional grounds. Most of the officials never responded.
We did receive a response from Burt Osborne, Director of Regulatory Services for the City of Minneapolis. His response read, in part:
“Quit threatening a lawsuit and just do it. The legal system exists to settle disputes like this.”
It is worth pointing out that we never threatened any litigation against the City. We simply stated that our legal team felt strongly that the ordinance was overtly unconstitutional, and, if implemented, would result in expensive and unnecessary litigation. Osborne ended his email with the following statement:
“Quit bothering my staff who have real work to do.”
Apparently, the City is more than willing to squander resources defending unconstitutional laws and rounding up and killing animals that have done nothing wrong. Because of this, Animal Ark believes the legal challenge to the City is an important one. We are setting up a legal fund to help the dog’s owner defray some of the legal costs. People from all over Minnesota – and especially Minneapolis residents – cannot let Minneapolis get away with this. Tell the City you want them to follow the law, not make laws that let them do whatever they want.
Do so by making a donation to our Animal Legal Defense Fund.
More background on the current case
The current case involves a Husky-German Shepherd mix that was declared “Potentially Dangerous” following a one-time encounter with another dog. The encounter resulted in no significant injury to either dog or any person. In fact, in the report filed by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control about the case, the responding Animal Control Officer determined that he did “not have any evidence that allows me to determine that ‘Lupa’ did not bite another dog.”
This statement effectively placed the burden of proof on the dog owner to prove a negative – that his dog did not bite. This raises other serious Constitutional questions, as does the hearing process the City provided for the owner of the dog to try to do so.
As this case is preparing to move before the Minnesota Court of Appeals, one of the issues that will come forward is the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as Article I, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, which requires that there be a “meaningful” hearing, consisting of live testimony, rather than simply a determination based internal review of paperwork.
The lack of a meaningful hearing was recently addressed by another “dangerous dog” case, Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, in which Minnesota Court of Appeals threw out “Potentially Dangerous” AND “Dangerous” designations because there was no “meaningful hearing” for the initial “Potentially Dangerous” designation, which was then used to later boost the dogs designation to “Dangerous”.
Article courtesy of animalarkshelter.org
For pet insurance visit https://www.petinsurancestore.com/parsers/brokerparser.aspx?agencyid=87
Priority Code- BR10MARS87
For all your insurance needs contact Mars Insurance Agency or visit us online at www.marsinsurance.com