1999-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DRAFTING AND ENFORCING ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCES The regulation of pets and other animals has not remained unchallenged over the years. In fact, challenges to animal regulations have increased over the years with a number of different constitutional challenges made against a wide variety of regulations. A. The purpose of animal control ordinance and regulations — are they rationally related? Challenges to animal ordinances are often based upon the rational relationship of the ordinance to the police power or the arbitrary and capricious adoption of ordinances. A city must have some reasonable basis for adopting an ordinance.' Animal regulations have been found to be rationally related if adopted to protect citizens from the danger of uncontrolled or inherently dangerous animals, prevent nuisances or maintain clean and healthy living environments in addition to many other reasons.' When drafting an ordinance to control animals within its community, a city may address a problem as it sees best. A city is entitled to "a reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to a problem. ' B. Drafting the animal control ordinance — is it too vague? An ordinance will be void for vagueness if it is not definite enough for a party to know from the statute what behavior should be avoided.' This is measured by whether a reasonable person would or would not understand that his conduct is prohibited by the ordinance." Therefore, the ordinance drafted by the City should provide enough guidance for ajudge to apply the law and for an attorney to defend against it. In many cases the pet owner recognizes the fact that his /her pet falls into the regulated category of animals. And, the burden falls on the animal owner or challenging party to demonstrate that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague." Because animal control ordinances generally impose criminal sanctions on animal owners for their violation, courts generally carefully scrutinize the ordinances.'' Nevertheless, the ordinances are generally upheld because simple dictionary definitions or common use of the term wiil often resolve any ambiguity presented by the ordinance." Thus, many owners will not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance for vagueness because, by the plain- meaning, the ordinance clearly applies to them. However, such owners may still challenge the ordinance as unconstitutionally vague when it is facially vague as written and overbroad." A facial attack on the vagueness of a statute requires a showing that the ordinance is vague in all of its applications not just in some hypothetical situation: ° Because an owner could bring such a claim, a municipality should try to be clear in what it demands from specific owners. For example, if the city enacts an ordinance requiring an animal to be kept on a leash, the city should be clear as to what animals this applies to and when. G. VCL0917tYAIV/n fRAS M1NOWf2OOMANf. ULCO 1170 5 9 Cw,nW Leave of Mmenu Cam 0 19W