3 - Hearing to Review and Appeal Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration

Home Browse Search

POLICE Eric Klang 218.568.8111 Chief of Police Fax 218.568.5647 4638 County Road 11 plpd@pequottakes-mn.gov Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 www.peguotlakes-mn.gov 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 Ms. Fennel's dog Mya 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 August 4, 2015. 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; or 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 Or. Transp., 444 N.W.2d 575, 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). 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 Ms. Fennell's dog, Mya, 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.