3 - Hearing to Review and Appeal Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration

Home Browse Search

POLICE Eric Mang 218.568.8111 Chief of Police Fax 218.568.5647 4638 County Road 11 plpd@pequotlakes-mn.gov Pequot Lakes,MN 56472 www.pequotlakes-mn.gov regulations in state law, however, cities are free to establish a process for such enforcement, or to supplement the statute's regulations. See Minn. Stat. sec. 347.53 ("nothing in sections 347.50 to 347.565 limits any restrictions that the local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dog.") Minnesota Statutes, sec. 347.50, subd. 3 defines a"potentially dangerous dog" as any dog that: 1. when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; 2. when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property; other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or 3. has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. In this case, the Police Department's declaration that Mya is a potentially dangerous dog is grounded in the first element of the above definition: that Mya, when unprovoked, inflicted a bite on a domestic animal while off the owner's (Ms. Fennell)property. Chapter 347 of the Minnesota Statutes proceeds to outline the requirements for microchip identification requirements for potentially dangerous dogs (347.515). Section 347.53 declares that any statutory or home rule charter city may regulate potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs, with few limitations placed on local jurisdictions by the statutes. The (potentially)dangerous dog laws must be enforced by the animal control authority or law enforcement agency whether or not there is a local ordinance on the subject. Minn. Stat. Sec. 347.565. An"animal control authority" is defined as an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state, which is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction (Minn. Stat. sec. 347.50, subd. 7)—in this case the City itself or its Police Department would be considered to be the animal control authority. Statute (as well as constitutional due process considerations) establishes that the owner of any dog that is declared to be potentially dangerous has a right to a hearing by"an impartial hearing officer"to contest the designation. Minn. Stat. sec. 347.541. This section states that the hearing officer"must be an impartial employee of the local government or impartial person retained by the local government to conduct the hearing." This section further establishes extensive notification requirements on animal control authorities when declaring a dog to be dangerous, each of which was complied with by the City in this case (id., subd. 3); however, it does not establish clear procedural requirements for conducting such a hearing. 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 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