City’s Dangerous Dog Law Ruled Unconstitutional

A judge rules that the ordinance in Spokane, Wash., violates a dog owner’s constitutional rights.

Posted: December 6, 2007, 5 a.m. EST

A judge in Spokane, Wash., ruled last week that the city’s dangerous dog ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies a dog owner’s right to due process, according to the Spokesman Review.

The city’s dangerous dog law allows animal control officers to confiscate dogs that they believe are dangerous, based on probable cause or as the result of an investigation. After formally issuing a dangerous dog declaration, the designation stays unless the owner can prove otherwise.

The ruling was spurred from a woman whose dogs were picked up after animal control officials believed they killed a neighborhood cat. She claims it wasn’t her dogs, and says her dogs were taken in because they are black and tan – the same color as the dogs who were seen attacking the cat.

The judge ruled that the city violated her rights by seizing her dogs – with the intention of euthanizing them or slapping her with severe housing and care restrictions – without providing her the opportunity to cross-examine witness allegations.

After the judge’s ruling, her dogs were returned to her.

Spokane’s dangerous dog law passed last June, but the ruling may force the city council to reexamine the ordinance and implement changes that allow dogs the presumption of innocence.

Other cities and states around the county have implemented, or begun to implement, similar dangerous dog laws, which could be affected by the judge’s ruling.


JOIN CLUB DOG NOW

4 of 10 Comments View All 10 Comments

Give us your opinion Give us your opinion on City’s Dangerous Dog Law Ruled Unconstitutional

User Avatar

J W   fowlerville, MI

12/6/2007 9:07:56 PM

I think that similar to human cases, probable cause should be the standard. Obviously many elements of having similar standards of human court proceedings would'nt be possible (jury of peers, right to face accusers etc) however I think that people who own animals need to bear responsibility for their actions, especially in cases involving violence against people or other animals. In the area I live, just this past summer 2 people were mauled to death by 2 dogs that lived on a nearby farm. The case is still pending, however, the owner of the farm had in excess of 10 dogs who frequently escaped thier fenced yard. Although they had not be violent in the past, the fact that they had escaped the yard in the past and now were responsible for the deaths of 2 people cannot be overlooked. There needs to be serious repercussions for irresponsibility that results in injurues. These dogs were proven responsible and euthanized.

User Avatar

Katie   Suwanee, GA

12/6/2007 3:34:47 PM

This is pretty interesting. I like the fact that some citys have these laws to keep us safe, but we wouldent have these problems if people had enough sence in the first place to train thier dogs against agresivenes.

User Avatar

Mary   Battle Creek, MI

12/6/2007 2:39:15 PM

I'm so glad the judge returned the dogs to her.

User Avatar

sarah   chicago, IL

12/6/2007 1:58:41 PM

interesting

Login to get points for commenting or write your comment below

 
First Name : Email :
International :
City : State :

Captcha Image


Get New Captcha


Top Products

ADS BY GOOGLE