1999-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. Making the distinction between types of animals in your ordinance — is that a problem with the equal protection clause? In Minnesota, distinctions between types of animals may be made when enacting an ordinance.' However, the ability of a municipality to make certain distinctions is limited by state statute. Minnesota law prohibits the regulation of dangerous dogs based solely on the breed of the dog; for example, a municipality may not prohibit the ownership of pit bulls2 Although a municipality may not ban a certain breed of dog, Minnesota does require anyone who owns a "dangerous dog" to register the pet, keep it in a proper enclosure and muzzle and properly restrain when it is outside of the enclosure' As for any other distinctions made in an ordinance, the municipality must have a reasonable basis for doing so2' The municipality, however, has broad discretion in determining classifications' Thus, it is valid for a municipality to draw a distinction between private ownership and zoo ownership of wild animals; and, consequently, prohibit the private ownership of certain animals that the city defines as "wild animals"?' For example, St. Paul's ordinance restricting the ownership of rabbits, chinchillas, minks, chickens, turkeys or other small animals or birds was found valid because it did not unreasonably restrict the type of pet one can own nor unfairly exempt certain organizations from the permit regulations.' D. Capture and custody of the animal — have you provided for the owner's due process rights? Due process is an essential consideration in ordinances that allow the city or one of its agents to impound or destroy an animal. The court will balance four factors in determining whether the due process requirements have been met: 1) what are the private interests that are affected; 2) what is the risk or erroneous deprivation of that interest; 3) what is the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and 4) what are the government's interests in the matter?' Although it will be discussed in greater detail below, a municipality should give notice to an owner and an opportunity to request a hearing prior to the destruction of an animal. IV. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCES A. Limiting the number of animals per household When a municipality is drafting an ordinance that, for example, limits the number of dogs per household, the municipality is not required to consider empirical data2' Dog owners challenged the constitutionality of Sauk Rapids' ordinance limiting the number of dogs per home without a permit to two; and, allowing permits to be obtained for owning more than two dogs over the age of six months. The dog owners argued that the ordinance was arbitrary and capricious and not rationally related to the health, safety and general welfare of the public because it was not passed based upon empirical studies. G.' PCLCIDi ]YAMWORASIANOlFdCCAUNLIGLQ). II PO 60 CwmN1 Lan,c or Mlxiaou at., C 1799