03 Hearing to Review the Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration from March 8, 2020-Revised

Home Browse Search

, i' � POLICE �.,� ' Eric Klang 218.568.81 I 1 �.'�,�� Chief of Police Fax 218.�68.5647 '�:;� d638 Count�� Road 11 �lpd�equotlakes-mn.�s ov Pequot Lakes, MN �6�172 N'li'w.pequotlakes-mn.gov Section 9-2.10 of the City Code also addresses the City's handling of potentially and dangerous dogs, and while it is not entirely consistent with the state statutes—which take precedence— in all respects, it establish a procedure to be followed when a dog owner requests a hearing to contest a potentially or dangerous dog designation as follows: If the owner of the dog requests a hearing as to the dangerous nature of his/her dog, then the City Clerk/Administrator shall place the matter before the City Council at its next regular meeting. The owner may present evidence in opposition to the designation of his/her dog as dangerous or potentially dangerous. The Chief of Police or his/her designee shall present evidence to the City Council that supports his determination that the dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous. Following the hearing, the City Council shall make a determination of facts and issue an order as to whether such dog is properly characterized as dangerous or potentially dangerous... City Code sec. 9-2.10(2)(C). In our view, the above quoted language from the City Code is consistent with the statutory requirement that the City grant a dog owner a hearing by "an impartial hearing officer," with the City Council performing the responsibilities of the "impartial hearing officer." Even though the City Council is not literally "an impartial employee" or"an impartial person retained to conduct the hearing," as stated in the statute, a hearing before the full City Council would provide greater process and protection to dog owners than the statute, and would therefore satisfy the statutory requirements. Further, as noted above, state statutes expressly leave room for cities to pass their own ordinances regulating dangerous dogs. For these reasons, we recommend that the City Council conduct the hearing on whether Mr. Rose dog, Jax is potentially dangerous within the meaning of state statute. If requested, the hearing must be held within 14 days of the request (Minn. Stat. sec. 347.541, subd. 4), which will be satisfied by conducting the hearing on April 7, 2020. Do to the circumstances beyond our control the hearing date was moved to the following regularly council meeting date. In the event that the City Council upholds the potentially dangerous dog declaration, the dog's owner will be responsible for the actual expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of$1,000. Id. The hearing officer (in this case the City Council) must issue a decision on the matter within 10 days after the hearing. Id. The decision must be delivered to the dog's owner by hand delivery or registered mail as soon as practical and a copy must be provided to the animal control authority. Id. The decision to declare a dog to be potentially dangerous must not be arbitrary and capricious, which means it must not 1) rely on factors not intended by the ordinance (or statute); 2) entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the issue; 3) offer an explanation that conflicts with evidence; ar 4) be so implausible that it could not be explained as a difference in view or the result of the city's expertise. See e.g. In re Space Ctr. Transp., 444 N.W.2d 575, 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). If, after conducting the hearing, the City Council affirms the Police Department's declaration that the dogs are dangerous, the City must follow state statute regarding the requirements for potentially dangerous dogs; specifically microchip identitication.