|
Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc. |
Pet owners sued after their pets were seized, detained, injured, or destroyed by the Humane Society. Pet owners’ attempts to certify a class failed because the claims were not typical. The members of the proposed class allegedly suffered a wide range of deprivations, were provided with different kinds of notice, and claimed distinct injuries. The class certification motion was also denied because the proposed members sought individualized monetary relief.
|
|
Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc. |
In relevant part, the District of Columbia’s Freedom from Cruelty to Animal Protection Act allows any humane officer to take possession of any animal to protect the animal(s) from neglect or cruelty. Plaintiffs, all of whom had their dogs seized under the Act, brought a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition for a count alleging that the Act is unconstitutional on its face and as customarily enforced. The United States District Court, District of Columbia, denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, finding the parties’ briefs in connection to the motion insufficient to determine whether an issue exists as to the Act‘s constitutionality.
|
|
Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society |
In this case, the plaintiffs are pet owners in the District of Columbia whose dogs were seized, detained, and damaged by the defendant-humane society without due process of the law. Plaintiffs brought an action against the District of Columbia, alleging that the District of Columbia's Freedom from Cruelty to Animal Protection Act, D.C.Code § 22-1001 et seq. is facially unconstitutional because it fails to provide animal owners with a meaningful right to contest the seizure, detention, and terms of release of their pets, prior to final action. However, the Act was amended in 2008 and the Court here asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing as to whether the amendments rendered the action by Plaintiffs moot. The Court found that Plaintiffs' facial challenge to the constitutionality of the Act has in fact been rendered moot by the 2008 Amendment.
|
|
DC - Animal Control - Subchapter III. Release of Animals. |
This D.C. law states that no animal shall be released from custody of animal protection except for the purposes of adoption, redemption by the owner of the animal, or other suitable placement in the best interest of the animal. No animals shall be knowingly released from any entity charged with animal protection for the purposes of research, experimentation, testing, or medical instruction or demonstration. Violation is a misdemeanor. |
|
DC - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws and Dangerous Dog Provision |
These District of Columbia statutes make up the dog laws for the District. Included among the provisions are definitions, animal control and at large provisions, and vaccinations/licensing regulations. With regard to dangerous dogs, the term "dangerous animal" means an animal that because of specific training or demonstrated behavior threatens the health or safety of the public. The Mayor may impound any animal at large or any dangerous animal. If a dog injures a person while at large, lack of knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity standing alone shall not absolve the owner from a finding of negligence. |
|
DC - Impoundment - § 8-1805. Impoundment |
Under this law, the Mayor shall make a prompt and reasonable attempt to locate and notify the owner of the impounded animal, including scanning the animal for a microchip. The Mayor shall deem abandoned any animal impounded and not redeemed by its owner within 7 days of impoundment if such animal is wearing identification. Any animal impounded not wearing identification shall be deemed abandoned if not redeemed by its owner within 5 days of impoundment. An animal deemed abandoned shall become the property of the District of Columbia and may be adopted or disposed of in a humane manner. |
|
DC - Municipalities - § 1-303.41. Regulations for the keeping, leashing, and running at large of dogs. |
The following District of Columbia statute allows the council to make and the mayor to enforce regulations regarding leashing dogs in DC. |
|
Denise Venero v. Prince George's County Maryland |
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action to challenge the Prince George's County, Maryland Pit Bull Ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert multiple due process and equal protection claims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as several violations of the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance bans the keeping of pit bull terriers in the county, and requires any pit bull owners at the time the ordinance was adopted to register the dog, pay a fee, maintain a secure kennel, and keep the dog secure at all times. The court in this case found that the plaintiffs lack standing, since they could not show an injury in fact relating to the county's enforcement of the ordinance, the county has returned seized dogs to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been afforded due process through the county's administrative process. |
|
Detailed Discussion of Humane Societies and Enforcement Powers |
In some states, humane societies are granted police powers to enforce animal cruelty laws. This Article explains the systems that states use to grant police powers to humane societies.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of State Dog Impound Laws |
This paper explores state and municipal dog impound laws, focusing specifically on loose dog laws, dogs chasing livestock laws, and public health laws. In doing so, the paper examines grants of police power to seize and destroy dog and what due process requirements constrain these state actions.
|
