CC PACKET 07142020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 10 of 35 The Potentially Dangerous Dog Designation May Have Been Erroneous, and the General Nature of the Incident Should be Considered by City Council The definition of a potentially dangerous dog is as follows pursuant to Minnesota Statute 347.50, subdivision 3 (emphasis added): Potentially dangerous dog. "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. The potentially dangerous dog letter is based on the first definition of potentially dangerous dog, which definition is specific to “bites on a human or domestic animal.” In this case, Hammerheart bite down (in the singular) on a boot in order to hold the bicyclist there that was chased. There was a single puncture on the boot, which is shown on the photograph. There was no bite on a human as required under the bite provision for a potentially dangerous dog designation to be made. It is apparent to Meridith whom observed the incident that Hammerheart chose to go after the boot versus a leg or other body part because he was intending to hold the bicyclist, not to cause harm to the bicyclist. Although there is no right to appeal a potentially dangerous dog designation, we respectfully ask you to take the facts from the first incident that gave rise to the potentially dangerous dog designation into consideration as it is a necessary pre-requisite in this case to Hammerheart being declared a dangerous dog and thus relevant. Concluding Thought on Due Process It seems that the St. Anthony Police Department treat the designation of dangerous dogs in a rather formulaic matter that does not account for the individual circumstances. According to Officer Rushton, if there are two bites, as a matter of practice, the Police Department will issue a dangerous dog designation. There is no consideration for the nature of the bite – whether aggressive, provoked, or on private or public property – all factors under the Minnesota statutory scheme. There is no one trained to evaluate a dog’s behavior or the dog itself. This formulaic handling without considering the individual facts and circumstances of the incident(s) seems as though it may be a deprivation of due process at the initial declaration stage of the process in the City of St. Anthony. This dangerous dog designation results in a particularly harsh deprivation of property rights of the dog given the St. Anthony ordinance, which does not just restrict ownership but deprives the dog owner of ownership either by having the dog re-homed or put down, unless the dog owner relocates to a different city. The level of due process required, including evidence of the matter asserted, is in relation to the property right potentially being deprived, as well as the State’s interest in the matter. We respectfully request that that City Council, which has wide discretion to consider all facts and circumstances when reaching its decision on this appeal, take the severity of the property right potentially being deprived and corresponding due process obligations into consideration when considering this appeal. 26