Laserfiche WebLink
Dangerous Dog Enforcement and Contested Hearing Process <br />February 26, 2014 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />to enforce the regulations in state law, however, cities are free to establish a process for such <br />enforcement, or to supplement the statute's regulations. See Minn. Stat. sec. 347.53 ("nothing in <br />sections 347.50 to 347.565 limits any restrictions that the local jurisdictions may place on owners <br />of potentially dangerous dogs.") <br />Minnesota Statutes, sec. 347.50, subd. 2 defines a"dangerous dog" as any dog that has: <br />(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a <br />human being on public or private property; <br />(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the <br />owner's property; or <br />(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner <br />has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog <br />aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or <br />domestic animals. <br />In this case, the Police Department's declaration that Kuda and Koko are dangerous dogs is <br />grounded in the second element of the above definition: that Kuda and Koko killed a domestic <br />animal (the Shihtzu "Teddy") while off the owner's (Mr. Traxler) property. <br />Chapter 347 of the Minnesota Statutes proceeds to outline the registration requirements for a <br />dangerous dog (sec. 347.51), the requirements for keeping and caring for a dangerous dog (secs. <br />347.515-.512), and confiscation and disposition procedures (secs. 347.54-.541). Section 347.53 <br />declares that any statutory or home rule charter city may regulate potentially dangerous and <br />dangerous dogs, with few limitations placed on local jurisdictions by the statutes. <br />The dangerous dog laws must be enforced by the animal control authority or law enforcement <br />agency whether or not there is a local ordinance on the subject. Minn. Stat. Sec. 347.565. An <br />"animal control authority" is defined as an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other <br />governmental subdivision of the state, which is responsible for animal control operations in its <br />jurisdiction (Minn. Stat. sec. 347.50, subd. 7�in this case the City itself or its Police <br />Department would be considered to be the animal control authority. <br />Statute (as well as constitutional due process considerations) establishes that the owner of any <br />dog that is declared to be dangerous has a right to a hearing by "an impartial hearing officer" to <br />contest the designation. Minn. Stat. sec. 347.541. This section states that the hearing officer <br />"must be an impartial employee of the local government or an impartial person retained by the <br />local government to conduct the hearing." This section further establishes extensive notification <br />requirements on animal control authorities when declaring a dog to be dangerous, each of which <br />was complied with by the City in this case (id., subd. 3); however, it does not establish clear <br />procedural requirements for conducting such a hearing. <br />Section 9-2.10 of the City Code also addresses the City's handling of dangerous and potentially <br />dangerous dogs, and while it is not entirely consistent with the state statutes—which take <br />precedence—in all respects, it establish a procedure to be followed when a dog owner requests a <br />hearing to contest a dangerous or potentially dangerous designation as follows: <br />