Memorandum
City
of
Legal
Services Department
|
TO: |
David Corliss, Interim City Manager |
|
FROM: |
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney |
|
Date: |
August 21, 2006 |
|
RE: |
Dangerous Dog Ordinance |
Table of
Contents
Immediate Threat to Public
Health or Safety
Approximately 65 millions
dogs live in the
The apparent extent of this
problem has not gone unnoticed by the governing bodies of
The City of
The dangerous dog ordinance,
Section 3-301 et. seq of the Lawrence City Code, actually contains two
different procedures for managing animals that might pose a threat to the
public safety or welfare. When
appropriate conditions regarding the dog’s handling and living conditions are
enough to reasonably ensure the public safety, then the provisions of Section
3-302 of the City Code may be invoked. For
the purposes of this procedure, a dog is considered dangerous if:
1.
It has a known
propensity to attack, cause injury to, or threaten the safety of human beings
or domestic animals.
2.
In a vicious and
threatening manner, it approaches a person on the streets, sidewalks or other
private or public grounds or spaces in apparent attack upon the person.
3.
It attacks or
bites, or has attacked or bitten any human or other domestic animal.
4.
It is owned or
harbored either primarily or partially for the purpose of dog fighting, or has
been trained for dog fighting.
Probable cause must exist to
believe that a certain dog is dangerous as defined above for proceedings to be
initiated under Section 3-302, and the City has the burden of proof in the
subsequent proceedings. Once a case is
initiated and the owner or harborer of the animal is served with a notice to
appear, a hearing to determine whether the dog is in fact dangerous must be
held within 5 to 20 days. Following any
determination that a dog is dangerous, there is a right to appellate review in
the District Court.
Once a dog has been declared
to be dangerous by the court, the owner has 15 days to comply with a set of
registration and confinement requirements designed to secure the public’s
safety. The dog must be registered on an
annual basis at a cost of $50 a year and a microchip must be inserted into the
animal with details regarding the dangerous dog registration and ownership
information. In addition, the address
information of the owner and the dog must be provided to the City Clerk and if
the information changes, it must be updated within 7 days of the change. Dangerous dogs must be kept in an enclosure
meeting certain minimum standards. The
enclosure must be a fence or structure at least 6 feet in height that is
suitable to confine a dangerous dog and keep it from escaping. It also must be designed to prevent access by
small children and must be securely enclosed and locked. The structure must be securely roofed, and if
it does not have an attached bottom then the sides of the enclosure must be
embedded into the ground at a minimum depth of one foot.
The dangerous dog is only
allowed to be outside of the enclosure or the dwelling of the owner if it is
necessary to obtain veterinary care, to allow the dog to urinate or defecate,
to sell or give away the dog, or to respond to the directions of law
enforcement. In any such circumstance,
however, the dog must be muzzled, leashed on a leash not longer than 4 feet,
and under the direct control and supervision of the owner or keeper of the
dangerous dog.
Any person who fails to
comply with these dangerous dog requirements when ordered to do so faces
criminal prosecution and the dog is subject to impoundment or destruction. Each of these offenses is punished by fines
and imprisonment of up to 6 months. If
the dangerous dog is found to be at large, the fine is $250 for a first offense
and $500 for a second offense within 24 months.
In addition, the dog is required to be destroyed upon a second offense
after being held for at least 5 days to allow the owner to contest his or her
guilt, and thus the destruction order.
If the dog attacks a human, the minimum fine is $500 and the dog shall
be ordered to be destroyed, subject to the appeal rights set forth above. Finally, if the dog attacks or wounds another
animal, the fine is set at $250 and the dog shall be destroyed after being held
for 5 days to allow for appeal of the destruction order.
Immediate Threat to Public
Health or Safety
The second, alternative,
procedure that may be used to deal with a dangerous dog is found in Section 3-305
of the City Code. This procedure is
appropriate when a dog is an immediate threat to public health and safety and
when the judge finds that the confinement and registration provisions discussed
above will not adequately protect the public’s health and safety. This remedy is an alternative to proceeding
under the other parts of the dangerous dog ordinance, and Section 3-305 states
that it is available irrespective of whether there has been a previous
determination that the dog in question is a dangerous dog as defined by the
other parts of that article. This
section of the City Code makes it a crime to possess such a dog, punishable by
a jail term not to exceed 6 months or a fine of not more than $1000 or both. In making the determination under this section,
the judge is directed to look at the “severity of the attack and other relevant
information.” If a dog meets the
criteria specified by this section then the judge may order that the dog be
destroyed.
As a supplement to the City’s
own dangerous dog enactments, the City Commission has also consented to the
enforcement of
The resolution is enforced
through the Douglas County District Court, as opposed to the Lawrence Municipal
Court. The definition of vicious dog
includes dogs that cause death or some types of injuries to a human being, dogs
that have been trained to fight, dogs that due to their physical attributes and
temperament threaten the public safety or the safety of emergency personnel who
might seek access to the property to perform their duties, or dogs that have
the propensity to attack human beings without provocation and that have the
physical qualities necessary to cause serious injury to a human being. The resolution declares vicious dogs to be a
public nuisance and mandates their euthanization. It is illegal under the resolution to own a
vicious dog, and once convicted of a violation of the resolution it becomes
illegal for the convicted person to own any dog within Douglas County, vicious
or not, for the period of three years.
The City of
These two parts of the City’s
dangerous dog ordinance, working together, appear to have made some positive
impact on the public’s safety. A letter
from Midge Grinstead, Director of the Lawrence Humane Society, attached as
Exhibit A, reflects her opinion that the ordinance is working well. She bases her opinion on a significant
decrease in dog bite cases, abuse and neglect cases, and intakes on animals
that have been used for dog fighting.
An examination of the
statistics regarding case filings under these ordinances illuminates how they
have been applied to dogs within the City of
|
Year |
Dangerous Finding |
Not Dangerous Finding |
Dismissed |
Denied for Lack of
Probable Cause |
Total |
|
2001 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
|
2002 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
13 |
|
2003 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
19 |
|
2004 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
|
2005 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
2006 (to date) |
13 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
21 |
These totals include both
dangerous dog and immediate threat cases.
The municipal judge has only
found it necessary to order 7 dogs to be destroyed since 2001. Some of these dogs were destroyed after a
finding that they constituted an immediate threat to the safety of the
community, while others were as a result of additional violations following the
initial dangerous dog finding. Of the
remaining dogs, most have either been euthanized by their owners, died, or have
been removed from the jurisdiction.
Currently, out of the 47 dogs that have been found to be dangerous dogs
since 2001, there are approximately one dozen of the dogs that likely reside
within the City. These 12 dogs belong to
9 different owners.
In our area, other cities
take a variety of approaches to deal with the problems posed by dangerous dogs. Unlike the City of
A survey of cities shows that
those municipalities that impose breed specific regulations remain in the
minority. Most medium and large cities
surveyed, however, including those with breed specific regulations, have one or
more provisions in their laws to address dangerous or vicious dogs of any
breed. The only exception among those
cities surveyed was
As one reviews information
dealing with the topic of animal control, it becomes clear that this is among
the more universal problems that cities face.
Either by virtue of responsible pet ownership, because of the effects of
the City’s animal control ordinances, or for some other reason,
If you need any other information on this topic, please let me know.
[1]
The Humane Society of the
[2] Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-4.
[3] Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics. 1996;97(6, pt 1):891-895.
[4] Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments," JAMA 1998;279:53, citing US Consumer Product Safety Commission.