 In September of 2011, I published an article titled Whose Pet is Safe with This Kind of Animal Control? In it, I described how the City of Minneapolis had made changes to its dangerous dog ordinances to make it easier for the City to declare dogs either "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous".
While the changes to the Minneapolis law were broad and sweeping and allowed the Minneapolis Animal Control (MACC) to declare nearly any dog dangerous or potentially dangerous, even if the dog had never bitten or injured a person or another animal, the City failed to notify dog owners about the proposed changes. As a result, when the Minneapolis City Council held a hearing on the proposed chances, no one appeared to speak for or against the new wording.
Most dog owners in Minneapolis only learned about the changes after they had become law, and a series of newspaper articles were written describing the new language. Animal Ark and other animal welfare advocates were immediately concerned, and rightly so. MACC had already earned a reputation for being overly punitive and seemingly too eager to deem animals dangerous or potentially dangerous. There was real fear that in their hands, the new ordinance would result in the needless killing of dogs that had done nothing wrong and unjustifiable suffering for dog owners whose canines were sure to get caught up in the system.
I predicted a string of law suits would result, taking valuable resources and time away from important City business. I immediately began complaining to various City officials objecting to the ordinance. Most of the officials never responded.
I did receive a response from Burt Osborne, Director of Regulatory Services for the City of Minneapolis. His response read, in part:
"Quit threatening a lawsuit and just do it. The legal system exists to settle disputes like this."
It is worth pointing out that I never threatened any litigation against the City. I simply stated that I felt strongly that the ordinance was overtly unconstitutional, and, if implemented, would result in expensive and unnecessary litigation. Osborne ended his email with the following statement:
"Quit bothering my staff who have real work to do."
City of Minneapolis Loses First Legal Challenge, Others Likely to Follow
The first challenge to the new Minneapolis language involved a Husky-German Shepherd mix that was declared "Potentially Dangerous" following a one-time encounter with another dog. The encounter resulted in no significant injury to either dog or any person. In fact, in the report filed by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control about the case, the responding Animal Control Officer determined that he did “not have any evidence that allows me to determine that ‘Lupa’ did not bite another dog.”
This statement effectively placed the burden of proof on the dog owner to prove a negative - that his dog did not bite. This raises other serious Constitutional questions, as does the hearing process the City provided for the owner of the dog to try to do so.
The dog's owner hired the Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen law firm to challenge the designation. The dog's owner prevailed and the City of Minneapolis appealed. Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the City's appeal.
The final court decision resulted in the "Potentially Dangerous" designation for the dog being removed, and the City having to cover legal fees for the dog's owner.
Ironically, during this same period MACC announced it was cutting back on some of its core services. Dan Niziolek, manager of MACC said, "We've gotten to the point where we can't consistently guarantee service."
So, while MACC can no longer guarantee basic services, they are spending time and money going after dogs that have done nothing wrong. According to several sources, there are multiple other cases - each of them similar to the one MACC just lost - preparing to go to court. As troubling these cases may be, a greater concern surrounds innocent dogs getting caught up in this system, whose owners do not have funds available to hire lawyers to defend them.
Take Action
Help Animal Ark establish a fund to assist animals inappropriately labeled "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous" by making a donation to our Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Minneapolis residents are also being asked to contact their City Council Members to demand changes to the ordinance, and needed reforms at MACC.
More background on the current case
The current case involves a Husky-German Shepherd mix that was declared "Potentially Dangerous" following a one-time encounter with another dog. The encounter resulted in no significant injury to either dog or any person. In fact, in the report filed by Minneapolis Animal Care and Control about the case, the responding Animal Control Officer determined that he did “not have any evidence that allows me to determine that ‘Lupa’ did not bite another dog.”
This statement effectively placed the burden of proof on the dog owner to prove a negative - that his dog did not bite. This raises other serious Constitutional questions, as does the hearing process the City provided for the owner of the dog to try to do so.
The lack of a meaningful hearing was recently addressed by another "dangerous dog" case, Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, in which Minnesota Court of Appeals threw out "Potentially Dangerous" AND "Dangerous" designations because there was no "meaningful hearing" for the initial "Potentially Dangerous" designation, which was then used to later boost the dogs designation to "Dangerous". |  | Related Links:
Whose Pet is Safe with This Kind of Animal Control?
Mansfield Tanick & Cohen
Marshall Tanick from Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen appeared on Animal Wise Radio on February 26, 2012 to discuss this case. Listen here. |