"Does my state have a dog leash law?"
Below is a table of the various examples of state leash laws with links to the state laws discussed in the following overview. Click on your state to see the relevant state leash law:
I. Introduction to Leash Laws
A simple question among dog owners and the public alike does not always lead to a simple answer. Such is the case with leash laws. Many people assume that their state has a mandatory leash law, while in truth only a few states have comprehensive leash requirements. While leash laws at the state level are few and far between, many states have state impound laws for loose dogs (see Detailed Discussion of Dog Impound Laws). Thus, a situation is created where a state may not require that owners put leashes on their dogs, but any dogs found roaming loose are subject to impoudment or may even be killed on sight.
The simple reason for the confusion lies with the division of power between state and local authorities. As discussed in the general police powers essay, the authority to regulate dogs often lies with local, or municipal, government (see Detailed Discussion on State and Local Dog Laws). This stems from two reasons. First, there are issues, such as the health, safety, and welfare of the general community, that state governments feel are better addressed at the local level. After all, local governments are assumed to have a firmer grasp of what the local community needs. Second, as with any lower branch of government, there is always an inherent tension in the struggle for power. Local units desire some level of self-governance, and state constitutions or statutes often provide for this level of control. As a result, state laws often grant local cities, townships, villages, and counties the power to adopt local laws (called ordinances) to deal with animal control. This is the norm rather than the exception in most states.
That being said only two states, Michigan and Pennsylvania, actually mention or suggest the term "leash" in their overall state leash laws (although see below for a debate on whether the Pennsylvania law actually mandates a leash). This overview attempts to briefly analyze the various types of state leash laws by giving examples to specific state laws. In doing so, the states thought to have "true" leash laws are discussed first. The article then covers those states that indirectly mandate restraint for dogs by outlawing loose dogs ("dogs at large"). State laws that give municipalities the right to adopt referendums or ordinances that require leashes are discussed as well as those state laws that require leashes in specific locations, such as beaches, parks, schools, and protected natural areas. Finally, this overview briefly touches upon those states that have adopted comprehensive codes for the regulation of dogs that are deemed "dangerous" or "vicious."
II. Which States Have General "Leash Laws?"
As noted previously, only two states really address the issue of leashes for dogs on a statewide basis. Michigan and Pennsylvania, perhaps in a less than clear manner, mandate that owners restrain their dogs on leashes when the dogs are not on their owners' property. The pertinent section of the Michigan Dog Law of 1919 provides that any dog over six months must be registered and wear a collar at all times. It then states that it is unlawful for anyone to allow a dog six months or older “to stray unless properly held in leash.” MCL 287.262. Likewise, Michigan law also provides that female dogs in heat must be kept on their owners' premises or restrained on a leash. While one may argue the phraseology (e.g., a dog cannot "stray unless properly held in leash" (emphasis added)) sounds somewhat counterintuitive, it does seem to mandate a statewide leash requirement for dogs.
While Michigan's law is thought to be a state leash law, many have questioned whether Pennsylvania's law is truly a "leash law" in the traditional sense. **Pennsylvania’s law appears direct, stating that it is unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog to fail to keep at all times such dog either confined within the premises of the owner or firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured. 3 P.S. § 459-305. Dogs engaged in training or lawful hunting are exempted from this requirement. If an owner disregards the law, he or she may be found negligent in a civil suit where the dog being off-leash caused harm to another. Indeed, one case held that an unexcused violation of the dog law requiring that a dog be either confined within the premises of the owner or firmly secured by a means of a collar and chain or other device, was negligence per se. Baehr v. Com. ex rel. Lower Merion Tp., 414 A.2d 415, 51 Pa.Cmwlth. 241 (1980).
Some suggest that is up for debate whether Pennsylvania's law truly requires a leash since it provides an option that a dog can be under the "reasonable control" of his or her owner. The law states:
§ 459-305. Confinement of dogs
It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog to fail to keep at all times such dog either:
(1) confined within the premises of the owner;
(2) firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or
(3) under the reasonable control of some person, or when engaged in lawful hunting, exhibition or field training.
[emphasis added]. This language seems to imply that a person can have reasonable control while the dog is not leashed. In Commonwealth v. Glumac, 717 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super., 1998), the Court stated the following:
The title of 3 P.S. § 459-305 concisely explains that the principle purpose of the section is the “confinement of dogs.” In enacting this section of the Dog Law, the legislature intended to require dog owners to prevent their dogs from running at large. See Miller v. Hurst, 302 Pa.Super. 235, 448 A.2d 614 (1982). The protection of the public's health and safety are attained when dogs are safely secured or accompanied when not so confined. See Baehr v. Commonwealth ex rel. Lower Merion Township, 51 Pa.Cmwlth. 241, 414 A.2d 415 (1980).
While Glumac suggests that one can be in compliance with the law simply by accompanying his or her dog, that person remains liable for any damage done by the dog should it stray. The case of Miller v. Hurst, 448 A.2d 614 (Pa.Super.,1982) cited by the Glumac Court, in commenting on Sec. 305 (which was previously known as Section 702) observed this danger:
We conclude that a society which has become as urbanized as it presently exists in Pennsylvania can no longer permit dogs to run free without imposing responsibility upon their owners for damages caused to persons or property by such roving dogs. This, we believe, was the intent of the legislature when it enacted the Dog Law of 1965. Section 702 of the statute, as a cursory reading of the entire statute discloses, was enacted as part of a statute intended to protect the public from personal injury, property damage and other hazards created by roving dogs. Indeed, Section 702 is directly supplemented by Section 501,FN5 which provides specific remedies to persons who have sustained bodily injury or property damage caused by unrestrained dogs.
[Section 702 was replaced by the current section 305. Note that this case was overruled because of the court's interpretation of appellate procedure, and not anything regarding the dog law.]
It should be noted that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in its FAQs on its website seems to suggest a leash is not required by the law.
Dog under Control
All dogs must be under control. This means that when your dog is not on your property, it must be under reasonable control of you or a handler. The best way to control your dog is with a leash. Remember, dogs are personal property. You are responsible for any damage caused by your dog.
See http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/CWP/view.asp?A=3&QUESTION_ID=126822. Of course, Pennsylvania residents should keep in mind any statement offered for information purposes, even by a state administrative agency, is not a binding interpretation of law.
Finally, from the Website from Pennsylvania Magistrate District Judge George Clark comes this FAQ:
10. Does the PA Dog Law require that I use a leash when I walk my dog?
People would be amazed to know how much time we spend on cases involving dogs and the responsibilities of dog owners. This is an inevitable phenomenon associated with residential development as our neighborhoods grow. The Dog Law, 3 P.S. sec 459-305, requires "dog owners and keepers at all times" to (1) confine their dogs within the owner's premises, (2) secure firmly by collar and chain or other device to prevent straying and (3) maintain the dog(s) under reasonable control. "Reasonable control" does not necessarily mean "on a leash" but the absence of a leash while walking a dog is a relevant factor to consider in determining the issue. The best practice to follow is to use a leash whenever possible because such a device makes it easier to control the dog.
See, http://www.justiceclark.com/faq.asp. In light of all this, it is difficult to say whether failure to leash a dog that appears under reasonable control of his or her owner would violate the law. This entire debate may be obviated by the fact most municipalities have local ordinances requiring the leashing of dogs. A Pennsylvania resident would be advised to check his or her local municipal code first for leash requirements.
As observed in Pennsylvania's law, a leash is not the only way to control a dog. In fact, some owners argue that a dog may be under the control of his or her handler by verbal or hand commands. In fact, most of the "restraint" laws for dogs do not mandate leashes, and instead outlaw dogs running at large.
III. Dogs Running at Large and Restraint Laws
In looking at state laws, very few mention the word "leash." This however, does not necessarily mean that one may let his or her dog roam the streets. Many states mandate leashes in an inadvertent way; they provide instead that a dog may not run at large. Currently, it appears that about ten states have general loose dog laws (i.e., laws that are not limited to night time or a certain location).
The phrase "dogs running at large" may conjure up a scene from a movie where packs of marauding dogs roam the quiet streets of a suburban town. Perhaps at one point in time, this was indeed the concern of the first state legislators. This is reflected in the wording of many "dogs running at large" statutes since many were drafted decades ago. Louisiana's leash law is typical of this type of statute:
No person shall suffer or permit any dog in his possession, or kept by him about his premises, to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.
LSA-R.S. 3:2771 . Essentially, this law prohibits roaming at large of dogs in municipalities and operates as a de facto leash law. Op.Atty.Gen. 1946-48, p. 369. Here, there is no mention of a leash in the statute, but there is also no mention that a dog can simply be under its owner's "reasonable control." Is a dog walking next to its owner running at large in violation of the statute? This question becomes relevant where the dog has damaged another person or his or her property, as violation of the law could amount to an automatic finding of negligence.
It should be noted that other state laws prohibiting dogs running at large could be interpreted in this manner to operate as state leash laws. Wisconsin law states that is a dog who is off his owner's property and not under reasonable control of a person is considered "at large." WI ST 174.042(1). A dog who is either untagged or is running at large is subject to impoundment and the owner who negligently allows his or her dog to run at large can be fined $25 -100 for a first offense. WI ST 174.042(2-4).
Several states that have loose dog statutes give exceptions to dogs who are actively engaged in hunting with their owners or handlers. South Carolina state law specifically exempts dogs from being leashed when actually engaged in hunting and under supervision. The section defines "supervision" to mean that the owner of the dog or his designee is either in the vicinity of the dog or in the process of trying to retrieve the dog. SC Code 1976 § 50-11-780. (See also Maine, Wisconsin and Connecticut for examples.) Delaware even gives an exception to farm dogs in its dogs running at large statute:
(a) No dog shall be permitted to run at large at any time, unless the dog is accompanied by the owner or custodian and under the owner's or custodian's reasonable control, except that a person who is an occupant of a farm or property containing 20 acres or more on which there are no more than 3 resident dwelling units may permit a dog to run at large between the 1st day of October and the last day of February, next following, provided the dog is licensed in accordance with § 1702 of this title. Any owner or custodian who violates this subsection shall be fined not less than $25 nor more than $50. For each subsequent offense occurring within 12 months of a prior offense, the person shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $100. The minimum fine for a subsequent offense shall not be subject to suspension. For the purposes of this section, the term "dog" shall mean any dog or dog hybrid. Allowing a dog to run at large is a violation.
DE ST T.7 s 1705.
Finally, many states only restrain loose dogs during the nighttime hours, likely out of a concern that such dogs become a nuisance. (See Kentucky and North Carolina for examples). Again, it is important to note that while a state may not formally prohibit the running at large of dogs, most local municipalities have adopted a restraint ordinance. In most states, local units of government inherently have the ability to enact such laws as part of their police powers. A few states have this power to regulate dogs and other animals specifically from state legislation.
IV. Empowering the Locality to Restrain Dogs
States without mandatory statewide leash laws place the responsibility on local units of government to enact leash laws. Virginia state law allows a referendum on whether a city should issue a leash ordinances:
The governing body of any city may adopt regulations or ordinances requiring that dogs within the confines of any such city be kept on a leash or otherwise restrained and may, by resolution directed to the circuit court of such city, request the court to order a referendum as to whether any such ordinance so adopted shall become effective in the city. Such referendum shall be held and conducted, and the results thereof ascertained and certified in accordance with § 24.2-684. The court shall require the governing body to give appropriate notice of the time, place and subject matter of such referendum.
The results of the referendum shall not be binding upon the governing body of any such city but may be used in ascertaining the sense of the voters.
Va. Code Ann. § 3.1-796.95. This is significant because there can then be no question as to whether a city in Virginia has the ability to consider a leash ordinance. Virginia law further provides that violation of an ordinance passed under this authority results in a misdemeanor. Va. Code Ann. § 3.1-796.128, VA ST § 3.1-796.128. Mississippi also grants this authority to municipalities, but much more broadly. The governing authorities of municipalities are granted the explicit power to prevent or regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds as well as the ability to cause such as may be running at large to be impounded. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-19-9. A statute such as this simply reinforces the idea that local units historically have been given the power to regulate animals within their bounds.
In addition to the general laws that grant municipalities the authority to make ordinances, some state laws specifically spell out local powers with respect to leashes. In fact, Rhode Island law dictates the subject matter of such dog ordinances. While the decision to create such ordinances is discretionary, each town may include an ordinance that prohibits dog from running unrestricted in the city or town or to be placed under the control of a person who is not physically able to restrain the dog. RI Gen.Laws 1956, § 4-13-15.1. For an example of a detailed local dog leash ordinance, please see Livonia Township, Minnesota’s Dog Ordinance at http://www.livoniatownship.org/dogordinance.htm.
Dog owners should keep in mind that municipal leash laws affect only those areas governed by the municipality. In state owned areas, there may be laws or regulations that determine whether a dog must be leashed. This is very common where the state area is a park or protected natural area.
V. Restraint Laws for Parks and other Protected Natural Areas
While a state may not mandate a leash for all areas, there may exist certain locations where a loose dog poses a particular threat. One such example of limitation by area are those laws that prohibit dogs from roaming without leashes in parks or other designated areas. In Alabama for example, no dog shall be permitted except on leash within any wildlife management area, except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources. Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-305, AL ST § 9-11-305. Those owners of any dog found at large within any wildlife management area are guilty of a misdemeanor. Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-305, AL ST § 9-11-305. Similarly, in Oklahoma, no person shall enter a state park with a dog, except those on leash, or permit any dog owned by him to enter a state park, recreational ground or state monument under the supervision of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Commission. 74 Okl. St. Ann. § 1846.1, OK ST T. 74 § 1846.1. Should an owner not heed this law, any member of the Commission or any employee of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission may kill any dog found running loose in any state park, or which may be chasing or running any game in the state park without liability for the killing of the dog. 74 Okl. St. Ann. § 1846.1, OK ST T. 74 § 1846.1. South Carolina also makes loose dogs unlawful in parks run by the state:
It shall be unlawful for any person to commit any of the following acts at any park or facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism:
* * *
(P) Bringing a dog or any other animal into the park or facility unless it is crated, caged, or upon a leash not longer than six feet or otherwise under physically restrictive control at all times . . .
SC Code 1976 § 51-3-145.
In Arizona, the list of prohibited areas is expanded to include schools: “No person in charge of any dog shall permit such dog in a public park or upon any public school property unless the dog is physically restrained by a leash, enclosed in a car, cage or similar enclosure or being exhibited or trained at a recognized kennel club event, public school or park sponsored event.” A. R. S. § 11-1012(D); AZ ST § 11-1012 (D). In West Virginia, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly allow a dog owned by him or her to be upon the grounds of the capitol buildings or governor's mansion unless such dog is under control by leash. Any person who knowingly allows a dog owned by him to be upon the grounds of the capitol buildings or governor's mansion while not under control by leash shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars. W. Va. Code, § 5A-4-4. Moreover, knowingly allowing a dog to defecate on the grounds and failing to remove the indignity leads to a similar fine under this same statute. It is not clear from the statute whether the governor would be subject to this law.
Massachusetts further specifies where leashes are required. In fact, an owner or keeper of a dog who fails to restrain his or her dog by a chain or leash when in an officially designated public highway rest area faces a fine of not more than fifty dollars. M.G.L.A. 140 § 174B, MA ST 140 § 174B. As with the other laws described above, the need for leashes is evident where the public or wildlife faces a risk from loose dogs. But, leash laws may also be required by state law for particular circumstances in addition to locations.
VI. Leash Laws and Rabies Quarantines
State leash laws may be specifically limited to those areas experiencing rabies epidemics. This is the case in Ohio, where any city director of the board of health may designate an area as a rabies quarantine. Owners are then required to either keep the dog secure on their premises or under leash held by a responsible person. OH R.C. § 955.26. Iowa also allows local units to establish leash requirements during a rabies epidemic if a local board of health believes rabies to be epidemic, or believes there is a threat of epidemic. During the period of quarantine, any person owning or having a dog in the person's possession in the quarantined area shall keep such animal securely enclosed or on a leash for the duration of the quarantine period. I. C. A. § 351.40, IA ST § 351.40. Arizona also prohibits dogs from being at large in a rabies quarantine area. In these areas, each dog shall be confined within an enclosure on the owner's property, secured so that the dog is confined entirely to the owner's property, or on a leash not to exceed six feet in length and directly under the owner's control when not on the owner's property. A.R.S. § 11-1012.
While the reasons for such health-based leash laws are obvious, they may also reflect the unwillingness of certain states to interfere with local laws unless the danger is a statewide concern. However, where the issue is one of public accommodation, the state will most often adopt a statewide law.
VII. Leash Laws for Assistance Animals
State leash laws also arise in the important context of service animals and guide dogs. Many states mandate that owners use leashes when their dogs are near persons employing the use of guide dogs. Connecticut law provides that the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain and control such dog on a leash when such dog is not on the property of its owner or keeper and is in proximity to a blind, deaf or mobility impaired person accompanied by his guide dog. CT ST § 22-364b. The guide dog must be in the direct custody of such blind, deaf or mobility impaired person, and must also be wearing a harness or an orange-colored leash and collar which makes it readily-identifiable as a guide dog. CT ST § 22-364b. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall have committed an infraction.
State laws not only address the need for restraint of the assistance animal, but also interference with those special animals. Again, in Connecticut, if an owner or keeper of a dog violates the law preventing dogs at large and as a result of this, his or her dog attacks and injures a guide dog, the owner or keeper is liable for any damage done to such guide dog, including veterinary care, rehabilitation or replacement of the injured guide dog, and reasonable attorney's fees. CT ST § 22-364b.
Louisiana has a similar provision that states “any person who purposely or negligently injures an assistance dog or any owner of a dog who allows that dog to injure an assistance dog because he fails to control or leash the dog shall also be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.” LSA-R.S. 46:1956, LA R.S. 46:1956. That person shall also be liable for any injuries to the assistance dog and, if necessary, the replacement and compensation for the loss of the assistance dog and attorney fees. LSA-R.S. 46:1956, LA R.S. 46:1956.
Again, failure to restrain one's dog that injures a valuable assistance animal can incur an automatic finding of negligence and possible criminal action. Not only are guide dogs uniquely trained, but they offer a physically challenged individual a lifeline to the world. The law has more or less assessed this balance of interests and decided that the burden for injury to such a special animal should fall entirely to the person who negligently lets his or her animal injure the assistance animal. It becomes a question of fairness and who shoulders the cost in a particular circumstance. But, such a balancing of interests is not limited to assistance animals. State legislatures have also determined that where a dog has been deemed "dangerous" or "vicious," the owner of that dog must also be held to heightened standards.
VIII. A Word on Dangerous Dogs and Leashes
One of the most common leash requirement is that related to the ownership and control of dogs deemed to be “dangerous.” Suffice to say these requirements are common and often mandatory for an owner to retain ownership of such dogs. They may describe the necessary length of the leash and may also require that the dog be leashed while on its owner's property. The requirement to leash a dog that has been adjudicated, or determined, "dangerous" is based on the need to protect the public regardless of location of the dog. Violation of leash requirements for dangerous dogs may not only lead to seizure and possible destruction of the dog, but also criminal charges to its owner. These charges may be severe felonies where such a dog injures another person as a result of its owner's failure to follow leash laws. To view some of these basic requirements, see the Table of Dangerous Dog Laws and click on your state law. (For an example of leash requirements under a dangerous dog law, see California’s dangerous dog law, Cal Food. & Ag. Code § 31642).
IX. Conclusion
State leash laws vary from outright leash requirements in a few states to those that limit leashes to specific areas. Many states further mandate leashes in conjunction with rabies quarantine provisions and in their dangerous dog codes. While not many states speak of leashes in their state laws, owners must keep in mind that many municipalities have some form of leash laws. As a result, all owners should keep abreast of local ordinances affecting their companion animals. Not only is ignorance of the law no defense, but a beloved companion could face impoundment or a possible worse fate.
[Return to Topic Page]
|
