1999-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ten day period back to the owner. If the owner fails to reclaim the animal, the municipality must transfer the animal to any licensed institution that has requested the animal; unless, the animal wears a tag that specifically states that it may not be used for animal research." Otherwise, if the owner still fails to reclaim the animal and: 1) no licensed institution has requested the dog; or 2) the city was unable to transfer animal because it bore a no research tag; then the municipality may elect to destroy the animal." However, there is little private interest in harboring dangerous or potentially dangerous animals. Moreover, the general public has a significant interest in the prevention of dangerous or potentially dangerous animals roaming the streets. The government entity will have a substantial interest in controlling animals to satisfy its obligations to the public. Thus, while due process is a concern prior to killing a pet, summary destruction of a pet is justified and constitutional in some cases. When an animal presents an immediate danger to the safety and health of the public, no notice or hearing will be required prior to destruction. The circumstances must be such as to create a reasonable belief that such killing is necessary to prevent injury to persons or property and the probability of present or future depredations while giving reasonable regard to the value of the animal to be destroyed 8 For example, summary destruction is permissible where it necessary to prevent the spread of an animal epidemic for the immediate protection of the public8 On the other hand, the mere fact that a dog may be chasing another's livestock or pets, however, is not enough to justify killing the dog. Rather, there must be a reasonable belief that the killing was necessary for the protection of the livestock or pets8 VII. CHALLENGES TO ORDINANCES A. Invalid ordinances Any ordinance found unconstitutional will be struck down. But this is not the only remedy sought by those who challenge pet regulations. If an ordinance is struck down for being unconstitutional, it is likely that the plaintiff's attorney will seek attorney's fees as provided for by federal statute, 42 U.S.C. §1983. While the actual damages for such a lawsuit may be minimal, the award of plaintiff's attorney fees could make the lawsuit a very expensive one for the City. The Minnesota Council of Dog Clubs recently claimed damages under section 1983 of the United States Code. To receive section 1983 damages, plaintiffs must show: I) they were deprived of a federal right; and 2) that the person depriving them acted under the color of state law. Generally, section 1983 damages are to be awarded in cases of egregious conduct by municipal employees acting with apparent authority. Cases in which a municipality sought to enforce a ordinance later found to be unconstitutional does not present the type of egregious conduct that Section 1983 damages are designed to discourage 8 As a result, the Minnesota Council of Dog Clubs did not receive Section 1983 damages; even though it had been successful in L. tPC_OS777 '• 4199i1 WPO * Cop,n,n1 L °OK.(Mwmu Cuiu a IM 66