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

Home Browse Search

/ / POLICE � Eric Klang ?18.�68.8111 � Chief of Police Fax?I 8.568.56�37 �� 4638 Coimty Road 1 1 plpd(a�pequotlakes-mn.� Pequot I,akes, MN 56�72 w�vw.�equotlakes-mn.�ov Analysis and Recommendations In reviewing the potentially dangerous dog declaration, the City Council will be serving in what has been termed a"quasi judicial" capacity. Unlike when the Council typically considers matters of policy in a legislative capacity, when acting in a quasi judicial capacity, the City Council's discretion is much more limited. As a result, rather than legislating for the broad population as whole, the City Council is, in this case, making a quasi judicial determination in a judge-like manner about specific enforcement actions undertaken by the City's Police Department regarding whether its determination that Mr. Rose's dog, Jax, satisfy the statutory definition of potentially dangerous dog. In quasi-judicial circumstances, the Council must follow the standards and requirements of its ordinance(s) and, if applicable, state statute. In this case, the Council must follow procedures set for in City Code sec. 9-2.10(2)(C) and the substantive requirements of Minn. State. Sec. 347.50, subd. 3 (the statutory definition of potentially dangerous dog). While the City Council has a great deal of freedom to establish its ordinances as it sees fit, once established, the Council is as equally bound by those ordinances as the public and must apply its ordinances (as well as state law) as written. Simply put, if the evidence provided in the hearing supports the finding that Mr. Rose's dog, without provocation bit a human while off Mr. Rose's property, the City Council should uphold the potentially dangerous dog declarations. If the evidence does not support such a finding, the declarations should be reversed with respect to that dog. In either case, the City Council should pass a resolution making written findings and conclusions in support of its decision. Further, in quasi judicial situations as this hearing, due process and equal protection are key factors courts will review in the event of further legal challenge. Due process and equal protection under the law dernand that similar applicants and appellants must be treated uniformly by the City. Mr. Rose must have adequate notice and opportunity to be heard by the City Council prior to the City Council deliberating and rendering its decision. The below recommended procedure for this hearing is intended to meet these legal standards for due process and equal protection. Finally, City Council members should specifically note that as the judge in this case, Council members should state no opinion on the subject matter of this hearing until after the hearing and record on April 7, 2020 are closed, such that all testimony and evidence will have been received by the Council prior to the Council's deliberations on April 7, 2020 and subsequent decision-making. Whatever decision the City Council ultimately then decides to make to either 1) affirm, or 2) overrule the Police Department's potentially dangerous dog declaration, the City's decisions must be supported by legally and factually sufficient findings and an order. City staff will propose findings for the Council's consideration at the April 7, 2020 hearing; however it is the Council's responsibility to determine if the evidence supports the proposed findings.