| Reacting to a series of dog attacks and problems | | | | the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's goal in these |
| in recent years in the Counties, both Stevens | | | | cases appears to be to hold back all relevant |
| County and Spokane County in Washington State | | | | documents and evidence entirely from the |
| (and nationwide) have adopted new regulations | | | | accused pet owner until a day or two before the |
| for dealing with potentially dangerous and vicious | | | | hearing, stating that the procedure is still in the |
| dogs. Since I am a citizen of Stevens County, I | | | | "investigational stage"-- similar to a criminal |
| will speak to the new Title 20 ordinance adopted | | | | proceeding. The pet owner has no time to |
| in December 2007 by Stevens County. | | | | prepare a defense; |
| Stevens County's new set of dangerous dog laws | | | | (3) After the Sheriff takes an incident report |
| is designed to put the accountability on the owner | | | | from the complainant, the owner of the alleged |
| and not just the animal. At this date, Stevens | | | | offending dog(s) is then promptly advised by a |
| County does not have any designated animal | | | | Stevens County Sheriff's Officer that he/she |
| control authority other than the Stevens County | | | | must submit to photographing of his/her dog(s), |
| Sheriff. Under its new Title 20 ordinance, the | | | | prior to the dog owner receiving any kind of a |
| Stevens County Sheriff's Office now has more | | | | notice or citation from the Stevens County |
| authority to find that a dog is dangerous or | | | | Animal Control Authority (the Sheriff). Notice of |
| potentially dangerous and impose corrective | | | | the alleged incident may simply be a Sheriff's |
| actions to protect the public. Owners are given | | | | Officer arriving on the doorstep or at your gate, |
| further opportunity to appeal the Stevens County | | | | and advising you that he is required to take |
| Sheriff's designation to the courts. | | | | photographs of your dogs as "part of the hearing |
| By definition under the newly adopted Title 20, a | | | | process". At this point, you may not even have |
| "potentially dangerous" dog is one that has a | | | | notice of any hearing. The photographing process |
| known propensity, tendency, or disposition to | | | | may or may not involve a Stevens County |
| cause an unprovoked attack or to cause injury or | | | | Sheriff's Officer demanding entrance onto your |
| otherwise threaten the safety of humans or | | | | private property or requesting entrance into your |
| domestic animals. A "dangerous dog" has caused | | | | home, for the stated purpose of photographing |
| unprovoked severe injury to a human being, or | | | | your dog(s). |
| has killed a domestic animal while off the owner | | | | Citizens, please be aware that a dog is designated |
| or keeper's property, or has previously been | | | | as "personal property" in the State of Washington |
| found "potentially dangerous" and aggressively | | | | and other states. The Washington State |
| attacks again or endangers safety. Both the | | | | Constitution and U.S. Constitution protect |
| "potentially dangerous" dog and "dangerous dog" | | | | individuals against unlawful searches and seizures |
| designations under the Stevens County, | | | | concerning your personal property. |
| Washington Title 20, carry similar consequences | | | | The simple act of entering onto private property |
| for owners and their dog(s). Stevens County has | | | | for the purpose of taking photographs of personal |
| imposed more restrictive measures under the | | | | property, without the direct or implied consent of |
| "potentially dangerous" dog designation than under | | | | the property owner and without a search |
| current Washington State law. | | | | warrant, is unlawful. Generally speaking, warrants |
| If a dog is found to be "dangerous" or "potentially | | | | are signed by judges or commissioners in criminal |
| dangerous", the owner must register the dogs | | | | matters. At this point, this procedure is still |
| within 14 days of the County Sheriff's | | | | considered a civil or administrative matter. There |
| determination, and the registration will only be | | | | appears to be something inherently wrong with |
| accepted if the owner agrees to placement of an | | | | this process from the outset. (The rule that I |
| identifying microchip inserted in the animal, | | | | have personally imposed is not to let anyone onto |
| payment of the first registration fee and an | | | | my property without my express invitation (or a |
| annual registration fee, and to keep the dog | | | | warrant). My directive to this effect seems to |
| enclosed indoors or in a proper enclosure. Proper | | | | work for most people.) |
| enclosure is defined under Title 20 as a kennel | | | | Of course, there are "exigent circumstances" |
| that contains an enclosed top as well as sides. If | | | | exceptions under the law to the warrant |
| the dog is allowed outside the enclosure, it must | | | | requirement. Exigent circumstances generally arise |
| be muzzled and restrained with a 3-foot chain | | | | when a law enforcement officer may have |
| with a 300 lb. tensile strength. An owner cannot | | | | reasonable ground to believe that there is an |
| sell or transfer ownership, custody or residence | | | | immediate need to protect his life, the life of |
| of the dog without notifying the County Sheriff | | | | others, their property, or that of others, the |
| and notifying the new owner of the dog's record | | | | search is not motivated by an intent to arrest |
| with an acknowledgment signed by the new | | | | and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable |
| owner of the terms and conditions of his | | | | basis to associate an emergency with the area or |
| maintenance while in Stevens County, Washington. | | | | place to be searched. None of these exigent |
| In extreme cases, presumably the County Sheriff | | | | circumstances is likely to exist in a Title 20 |
| as the animal control officer has the authority to | | | | dangerous or potentially dangerous dog |
| decide if the dog must be destroyed. While I can | | | | investigation which would allow a public official to |
| understand the adoption of Title 20 and its | | | | trespass for the purpose of photographing dogs. |
| ordinances and the "dangerous dog" designation | | | | 4) The owner of the alleged offending dog will |
| and the purpose and merit behind its adoption, the | | | | then receive a certified letter or personal service |
| "potentially dangerous dog" designation appears to | | | | by the Stevens County Sheriff', notifying the |
| be nearly impossible to regulate and this particular | | | | dog's owner that their dog has already been |
| designation is ripe for abuse. | | | | deemed a "potentially dangerous" dog or |
| I am relatively certain many of us have | | | | "dangerous dog" under their new Title 20 |
| experienced a difficult neighbor a time or two. For | | | | ordinance. The owner's dog is deemed "guilty" |
| whatever reason, certain individuals seem to have | | | | before tried, based generally only upon a report |
| nothing better to do than complain about their | | | | made by a complainant. That complainant could be |
| neighbors' pets, the broken down automobile, | | | | made by anyone with "axe to grind". The dog is |
| hobbies, or anything else that may annoy them at | | | | declared guilty in advance of a public hearing |
| any given time. In fact for some people, they | | | | before the Stevens County Sheriff's Department. |
| seem to make complaining their hobby. In rural | | | | The investigating agency (the Stevens County |
| Stevens County, Washington and other rural | | | | Sheriff's Office) then amazingly plays the role of |
| areas that are moving rapidly toward | | | | the judge and jury at this public hearing where |
| development, there will always be conflicts | | | | the dog's owner is required to prove that his/her |
| between country neighbors with differing views | | | | dog is not dangerous, or potentially dangerous. |
| on a rural lifestyle. The Title 20 "potentially | | | | Please be aware that you (as the accused) are |
| dangerous" dog designation provides these people | | | | not required to prove anything. The burden of |
| with just one more avenue for conflict and | | | | proof falls upon your accusers to make their |
| additional ammunition for harassment. An additional | | | | case, and not you. Public testimony will be taken |
| danger for citizens is that the entire hearing | | | | by the Sheriff, and you will receive a subsequent |
| process as applied through the Stevens County | | | | notice of his final ruling. This entire process usurps |
| Sheriff's Office, under both designations, appears | | | | constitutional protections afforded each citizen |
| to be fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional. | | | | under Washington State and U.S. Constitutions. |
| I have spoken to several residents in the County | | | | Any hearing in a "potentially dangerous dog" or |
| where harrassment by a nuisance neighbor, | | | | "dangerous dog" case should be set before an |
| through Title 20, appears to have occurred to | | | | impartial judge or hearing officer. The Sheriff |
| their detriment. The new Stevens County, | | | | cannot rule on issues as a matter of law. |
| Washington Title 20 "potentially dangerous dog" | | | | It is my understanding and belief that any public |
| designation seems to make it particularly easy for | | | | hearing conducted by a public official(s) in |
| a nuisance neighbor to harass another neighbor. | | | | Washington State must follow the law and |
| Since the recent adoption of Title 20 in December | | | | procedures under either the Washington State |
| 2007, I have discovered that several citizens have | | | | Open Meetings Act or Administrative Procedures |
| been struggling to defend against false and/or | | | | Act. Since a dangerous dog hearing does not |
| frivolous allegations about their companion dogs. | | | | really meet the criteria under the Open Meetings |
| One citizen found herself the target of a nuisance | | | | Act, the hearing process should follow the |
| allegation by a problem neighbor and the Stevens | | | | Washington State Administrative Procedures Act. |
| County Sheriff concerning her "potentially | | | | If you are not familiar with this Act, familiarize |
| dangerous" dogs, after her complaining neighbor's | | | | yourself with it and your rights under this Act. |
| dog pulled her show dog through her own fence | | | | This law can be found in the public library under |
| and killed it. Apparently a complaint was lodged by | | | | 34.05 RCW (Revised Code of Washington). Insist |
| the nuisance neighbor against the deceased show | | | | that any dangerous dog hearing you may be a |
| dog as a preemptive strike. How many Stevens | | | | party to comply with these lawful procedures. |
| County citizens have simply forfeited their right to | | | | Citizens, please take heed! The Stevens County |
| ownership of a companion dog because of | | | | Title 20 dangerous dog ordinances are dangerous |
| nuisance allegations they could not afford to | | | | to you in that they can potentially escalate into a |
| defend and unconstitutional actions being taken by | | | | criminal matter if you do not comply with the |
| Stevens County public officials? All a nuisance | | | | severe restrictions imposed on your dog, or if the |
| neighbor may now have to do is claim that a dog | | | | dog is again the subject of a complaint. You must |
| barked at them, and the dog's owner may be hit | | | | contest the letter/notice that you receive from |
| with a predetermined "potentially dangerous" dog | | | | the Stevens County, Washington Sheriff's Office |
| designation, fees, an embarrassing public hearing | | | | and promptly return it via Certified US Mail or |
| and media coverage, and other severe | | | | Delivery Confirmation. Also enclose your own |
| restrictions on their dog by the Stevens County | | | | letter stating you contest your dog's |
| Sheriff. | | | | predetermined designation by the Sheriff, and that |
| I suppose the best part of the new Title 20 | | | | you demand a lawful hearing before a bona fide |
| ordinance is the appeal process since a dog is | | | | hearing officer conducted under the Washington |
| already predetermined by the Stevens County | | | | State Administrative Procedures Act. If you do |
| Sheriff to either be "dangerous" or "potentially | | | | not sign and return the Notice from the County |
| dangerous" prior to a hearing. However, many | | | | Sheriff, the "potentially dangerous dog" designation |
| poor people do not have the resources to legally | | | | is automatically applied by the Sheriff to your dog |
| fight back against an initial and possibly frivolous | | | | through your inaction. |
| determination by the Stevens County Sheriff in | | | | Once you have been deemed to own a |
| advance of a public hearing. Attorney fees, at a | | | | "potentially dangerous" dog or "dangerous" dog, all |
| rate of $200 per hour to defend against this type | | | | regulations, restrictions, fees and other penalties |
| of nuisance action, may be in the range of $2,000 | | | | under the new ordinances apply to you and your |
| - $40,000+. | | | | dog. The Title 20 regulations, restrictions, fees and |
| There are other potential problems in carrying out | | | | other penalties have severe consequences for |
| the new Stevens County Title 20 ordinances. The | | | | both you and your dog. If you do not comply |
| problems I reference below, as well as others I | | | | with these new regulations following the final |
| have not highlighted in this article, have already | | | | determination of your "potentially dangerous dog" |
| emerged in other states and Washington State | | | | or "dangerous dog", then you possibly may be |
| counties -- King and Spokane County, Washington, | | | | issued a criminal citation. Potentially you may be |
| for example. The courts in King County and | | | | thrust into the position of defending yourself as a |
| Spokane County have recently ruled upon the | | | | criminal. Moreover, your homeowner's insurance |
| controversial dangerous dog ordinances and | | | | may be cancelled or be prohibitively expensive in |
| procedures. In King County, for example, in the | | | | the future, and you may be forced to carry an |
| recent dangerous dog case of Mansour v. King | | | | expensive bond if you intend to keep your dog in |
| County tried by animal law attorney Adam Karp, | | | | the County. |
| where Mansour was found to have been denied | | | | The Title 20 dangerous dog ordinances can be |
| due process, the Washington State Court of | | | | dangerous to your health and welfare and your |
| Appeals ruled: "Due process essentially requires | | | | dog's health and welfare, particularly if you do not |
| the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time | | | | exercise your constitutional rights. I would highly |
| and in a meaningful manner". . . "An adequate | | | | recommend hiring an attorney, if you can afford |
| standard of proof is a mandatory safeguard." " | | | | one. Hire someone who specializes in animal law, |
| The standard of proof instructs the fact finder | | | | for instance one of the attorneys mentioned in |
| "concerning the degree of confidence our society | | | | this article. If you cannot afford one and are low |
| thinks he should have in the correctness of the | | | | income, call CLEAR at their toll free number in |
| factual conclusions" . . .. While the Stevens County | | | | Washington State to see if you can qualify for |
| Sheriff continues to sit as the investigating official, | | | | free legal assistance. Other possible sources of |
| the judge and jury in these potentially dangerous | | | | legal assistance are the Gonzaga Law School, or |
| and dangerous dog cases, how much confidence | | | | the Washington State Bar Association who may |
| can the public place in any factual conclusion made | | | | have a referral to a pro bono (free) attorney. |
| by the Sheriff's Office? | | | | Please exercise your civil and constitutional rights |
| In Spokane County in a "potentially dangerous | | | | and familiarize yourselves with this new set of |
| dog" case, Judge Austin of the Spokane County | | | | laws under Stevens County, Washington - Title |
| Superior Court ruled that Spokane's "dangerous | | | | 20. Please do not allow your valuable rights to be |
| dog" ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies | | | | trampled upon by public officials or you may lose |
| pet owners the right of due process, and that as | | | | them. Do not allow yourself to become their |
| a matter of law the administrative procedures | | | | victim. |
| used in the City of Spokane regarding "dangerous | | | | Last but not least, please recognize and be aware |
| dog" determinations and appeals from those | | | | that you do not have to allow anyone onto your |
| rulings violate citizens' due process rights. In their | | | | private property, in most cases, without a |
| current system, dogs tagged as "dangerous" by | | | | warrant. It surprises me that many citizens do |
| the city and its contractor, SpokAnimal, are | | | | not know this. If there is any doubt in your mind, |
| deemed to be just that unless the owner can | | | | please respectfully ask the person requesting |
| prove otherwise -- flying in the face of the notion | | | | permission to enter onto your private property |
| of presumed innocence. The judge ruled that the | | | | "do you have a warrant?" Express to them that |
| City violated (in this case) Patty Schoendorf's | | | | without a signed warrant, that person does not |
| rights by taking her property -- her dogs --and | | | | have your consent to enter onto your private |
| intended to destroy them after a hearing where | | | | property. This rule generally applies to most |
| she was not allowed to cross-examine or impeach | | | | everyone, public officials included, unless they |
| witnesses involved in the dog's impoundment. She | | | | have an implied right to enter such as a meter |
| also wasn't given access to documents in the | | | | reader. With respect to your private property |
| City's "dangerous dog" file, and the opportunity to | | | | rights, generally speaking, what applies to any |
| rebut those allegations -- another denial of due | | | | other private citizen who wants entrance to your |
| process guaranteed by the Constitution. The | | | | property applies to public officials as well. Post |
| judge not only ordered Spokanimal to immediately | | | | your gates and property with "No Trespassing" |
| release the dogs, he also ordered the City of | | | | and "Beware of Dog" signs to protect yourself -- |
| Spokane to pay legal bills for a team of attorneys | | | | approximately every 50 feet. Also fence your |
| - Robert Caruso, Richard Lee and Cheryl Mitchell, | | | | property with at least a 5-6 foot fence if you |
| animal law attorneys. | | | | own a dog, for additional protection. Electrify your |
| While I would like to say that I trust the Sheriff's | | | | fence, if necessary, if you are in a rural area. |
| Animal Control Officers to ensure that there is a | | | | Fence chargers, including solar fence chargers, can |
| real danger to the public, the truth (and therein | | | | be purchased for $30 and up and are quite |
| the problem) is that in Stevens County there is | | | | effective as a deterrent to entrance and exit by |
| currently no separation of powers from the onset | | | | animals. |
| of the initial investigation, the Sheriff's | | | | I recognize that this article may not be "politically |
| determination of "potentially dangerous dog", and | | | | correct" in this climate as this is a sensitive issue |
| finally to the Sheriff's ruling following a public | | | | right now. I am aware that it may anger those |
| hearing that a dog is "potentially dangerous". The | | | | who are truly at risk or who have been victims |
| Stevens County Animal Control Authority (the | | | | of genuinely dangerous dogs. I agree that |
| Stevens County Sheriff's Office) sits as the | | | | genuinely dangerous dogs are a threat to public |
| investigator, judge and jury. Where is our | | | | safety. However, I submit that while the intent |
| guaranteed system of checks and balances in this | | | | behind Title 20 and other dangerous dog laws is |
| process? The following is generally the procedure | | | | good and I agree with its intent, the process to |
| used under the Stevens County "potentially | | | | apply and regulate under these laws has been |
| dangerous" dog designation: | | | | poorly thought out and implemented in general by |
| (1) When a complainant calls to make a report, he | | | | Stevens County, Washington and other counties |
| makes it to the Stevens County | | | | around Washington State (and our nation) in trying |
| Sheriff's Office, the designated animal control | | | | to protect the public safety. In trying to protect |
| authority in Stevens County; | | | | the public health and safety, individual constitutional |
| (2) A Stevens County Sheriff's Officer may be | | | | rights, due process, and privacy cannot be |
| dispatched to the scene to presumably thoroughly | | | | ignored. If you do not exercise your rights, you |
| investigate the dog incident and take an incident | | | | will forfeit those valuable rights guaranteed to you |
| report. A thorough and complete investigation | | | | by the U.S. and Washington State constitutions. |
| may or may not occur, and in fact the dog's | | | | You also may be forced to relinquish your |
| owner may not even be allowed to tell their side | | | | beloved family pet, euthanize it, move out of the |
| of the story to the Officer or see the complaint, | | | | County, or live with severe restrictions on the |
| the results of the investigation, and may not even | | | | animal and very expensive insurance. |
| be advised of the name of the complainant by | | | | |