3 - Hearing to Review and Appeal Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration

Home Browse Search

. / POLICE Eric Kiang 218.568.8111 Chief of Police Fax 218.568.5647 4638 County Road l 1 plpd@pequotlakes-mn.gov Pequot Lakes,MN 56472 www.pequotlakes-mn.gov Simply put, if the evidence provided in the hearing supports the finding that Ms. Fennell's dog, without provocation bit another domestic animal while off Ms. Fennell'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 demand that similar applicants and appellants must be treated uniformly by the City. Ms. Fennell 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 February 29, 2016 are closed, such that all testimony and evidence will have been received by the Council prior to the Council's deliberations on February 29, 2016 and subsequent decision-making. Whatever decision the City Council ultimately then decides to make to either 1) affirm, or 2) overrule the City's previous determination affirming the dog is potentially dangerous,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 February 29, 2016 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 February 29, 2016 should be as follows: 1. Open public hearing—Mayor Sjoblad 2. Opening comments on process of appeal by Mayor Sjoblad and Sgt. Turcotte 3. Introductory comments by City/Police Department staff—5 minutes 4. Appellant, Ms. Fennell shall have the opportunity to be heard by the City Council and to show why the Police Department's potentially dangerous dog declaration should be overruled or amended— 10 minutes 5. City/Police Department staff presentation of evidence that Ms. Fennell's dog, Mya, satisfy the statutory definition of dangerous dog and opportunity to rebut evidence submitted by and/or respond to arguments made by Ms. Fennell— 10 minutes 6. Questions from City Council members 7. Close public hearing and record—Mayor Sjoblad 8. City Council deliberations on the issue. 9. City Council make a motion and to affirm or overrule the August 4, 2015 factual findings and order of potentially dangerous dog declaration during open meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Thank you, Sergeant Chad Turcotte