Impound or Animal Control
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| OR - Impound - 609.090. Impounding dogs running at large; disposition of chasing, menacing or biting | This Oregon statute provides that when a dog is running at large contrary to state or municipal law, a police or dog control officer shall impound it. Unless claimed by its owner, a dog will be held at least five days if it has a license tag. A "reasonable effort" shall be made to notify the keeper of a dog before the dog is removed from impoundment. This statute also states that, upon finding that the dog has menaced or chased a person when on premises other than the premises occupied exclusively by the keeper or has bitten a person, the dog control board or county governing body may order that the dog be killed in a humane manner. Before ordering that the dog be killed, the board or governing body shall consider the factors described in ORS 609.093 and issue written findings on those factors. A keeper of the dog may also file a petition to prevent the destruction. If the dog is not killed, the board or governing body may impose reasonable restrictions on the keeping of the dog. |
| OR - Licenses - 609.060. Notice by publication of election result; dogs running at large prohibited; violations | This Oregon statute provides that if a governing body of a county by ordinance, or a measure approved by the electors in an election prohibits dogs from running at large, the county shall give notice, by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the county. If after 60 days from the notice, a keeper violates the running at large ordinance, he or she commits a Class B violation. |
| Overview of Humane Societies and Enforcement Powers |
|
| Overview of Municipal Animal Control Ordinances |
|
| Overview of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals | This overview examines how states deal with foster care and other non-profit rescue organizations. It details how states define such organizations and what laws may affect their operations. The paper also discusses potential legal issues that arise with pet rescue and fostering. |
| PA - Ordinances - § 23144. To tax and destroy dogs | This briefly worded Pennsylvania statute presumably gives municipalities the authority "[t]o regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs found at large contrary to any ordinance." |
| PA - Ordinances - § 459-1201. Applicability to cities of the first class, second class, second class A and third class | This Pennsylvania statute provides that cities of the first and second class are not affected by state dog licensing programs; existing city-level programs remain in effect. With cities of the third class, certain provisions of the state article on dog licensing shall not apply if the city has established a licensing program by ordinance. |
| PA - Ordinances - § 66530. Regulation of dogs | This Pennsylvania statute provides that the board of supervisors may by ordinance prohibit and regulate the running at large of dogs. |
| People v. Meadows |
Defendant Amber Meadows allegedly neglected to provide dogs Athena, Buddy, and Meeko, with air, food, and water, and confined them in a bedroom where feces was found on the floor and furniture. Meadows was prosecuted for three counts of the unclassified misdemeanor of failure to provide proper food and drink to an impounded animal in violation of § 356 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML). Meadows moved to dismiss the Information as facially insufficient and stated that the Supporting Deposition indicated that the dogs were “in good condition.” The People of the State of New York argued that the allegations in both the Information and Deposition, taken together, provide a sufficient basis to establish the elements of the crime. The Canandaigua City Court, Ontario County, held that: (1) “impounded” as stated in § 356 of the Agriculture and Markets Law does not apply to individual persons, and (2) even if the statute applied to individual persons, the allegations in the Information were not facially sufficient. The court reasoned § 356 does not apply to individual persons, but instead applies only to “pounds” operated by not-for-profit organizations, or kennels where animals are confined for hire. The court also stated that even if § 356 were to apply to individuals, under no construction of the facts here could the charge be sustained, as it appeared that the animals were properly cared for in the Defendant's apartment up to the point where she was forcibly detained. The conditions observed by law enforcement authorities on the date alleged in the Information were apparently several days after Meadow's incarceration and after which she was unsuccessful in securing assistance for the dogs while incarcerated. The Information was dismissed with prejudice, and the People's application for leave to file an amended or superseding Information was denied. |
| Peoria County v. Capitelli |
|