03-04-2014 Special Meeting Information

Home Browse Search

Dangerous Dog Enforcement and Contested Hearing Process February 26, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Analysis and Recommendations In reviewing these two dangerous dog declarations, 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. Traxler's dogs, Kuda and Koko, satisfy the statutory definition of 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 forth in City Code sec. 9-2.10(2)(C) and the substantive requirements of Minn. Stat. sec. 347.50, subd. 2(the statutory definition of 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. Traxler's dogs killed a domestic animal while off Mr. Traxler's property, the City Council should uphold the dangerous dog declarations. If the evidence does not support such a finding with respect to either dog, 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 demand that similar applicants and appellants must be treated uniformly by the City. Mr. Traxler 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 March 4 are closed, such that all testimony and evidence will have been received by the Council prior to the Council's deliberations on March 4 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 dangerous dog declarations, 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 March 4 hearing; however it is the Council's responsibility to determine if the evidence supports the proposed findings. In light of the above, we propose that the order of procedure for the City Council to hear this appeal on March 4, 2014 should be as follows: 1. Open public hearing — Mayor Adams. 2. Opening comments on process of appeal by Mayor Adams and City Administrator Peine.