Leash Laws

Displaying 91 - 100 of 129
Titlesort descending Summary
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. Beauvil


This New York case came before this Court after the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case. The complaintant alleged that on April 16, 2008, he was walking down a public sidewalk when a loose dog, later identified as belonging to the defendants, ran up to and bit the complainant on the hand. Police were contacted and a complaint was made to the Village of Westbury Attorney who then advised the complainant to file a formal complaint with the Nassau County District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office declined to prosecute and instead suggested that the Village handle the matter. This Court held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the misdemeanor charge stemming from the violation of Agriculture & Markets Law § 121 (but then did list the other avenues available for the complaintant). This Court, sua sponte, also held that the Agriculture & Markets Law § 121, as applied to Nassau County Village Justice Courts, is unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that Village Courts have no jurisdiction (or ability, as pointed out by the court) to hear misdemeanors.
Pless v. State
In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court found that the evidence showed that in the months prior to the July 14 and August 1 incidents, Pless's dogs were repeatedly found loose in neighbors' yards and garages. Accordingly, evidence supported the conviction on the charge of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance under § 3-4-7(5). ("Public nuisance" is defined, among other things, as any animal which "[i]s found repeatedly at large."). On certiorari review, the Georgia Supreme Court in

State v. Pless, 646 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 2007)

reversed judgment of Pless v. State, 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App. 2006), and the case was then sent to

Pless v. State, 648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. App. 2007)

on remand.
Pless v. State


In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the defendant's conviction with the exception of that portion of his sentence requiring him to reimburse the county for his court-appointed attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, reversed the appellate court's holding and ruled that the trial court was authorized to impose the reimbursement of attorney fees as part of the sentence. On remand, the appellate court vacated that portion of its opinion that reversed the imposition of attorney fees and adopted the Supreme Court's opinion as its own;  all other respects of the appellate decision, Pless v. State,

633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App., 2006),

remain undisturbed.
RI - Dogs at campgrounds, beaches - § 42-17.1-45. No prohibition on pets This law provides that the Department of Environmental Management shall not promulgate or enforce any rule or regulation that would prohibit a pet dog or cat from accompanying its owner or caretaker at any state owned campground.
RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-15.1. Ordinances concerning unrestricted and vicious dogs prohibited--Leash laws This Rhode Island statute provides that city or town councils may make any ordinances concerning dogs in their cities or towns as the councils deem expedient, pertaining to the conduct of dogs. The statute outlines specifically what the ordinances may address, including regulations relating to unrestricted dogs, leash laws, confinement, and destruction of vicious dogs. The statute also adds additional provisions relating to the towns of Westerly and Exeter.
SC - Impound - § 47-3-750. Seizure and impoundment of dangerous animal. This South Carolina statute provides that if an animal control officer has probable cause to believe that a dangerous animal is being harbored or cared for in violation of Section 47-3-720 or 47-3-740 or 47-3-760(E), or Section 47-3-730, the agent or officer may petition the appropriate court to order the seizure and impoundment of the dangerous animal while the trial is pending.
SC - Impound - § 47-3-40. Impoundment or quarantine of cat or dog running at large; release to owner. This South Carolina statute provides that the county or municipal animal shelter or animal control officers shall pick up and impound or quarantine any dog running at large. To obtain release of a dog or cat, an owner must prove that the dog or cat is currently inoculated against rabies and also pay an impound or quarantine fee determined by the governing body of the county or municipality.
SC - Leash - § 50-11-780. Dogs engaged in hunting not required to be constrained by leash. This South Carolina statute provides that no dog is required to be constrained by a leash while it is actually engaged in hunting game and under supervision. As used in this section "supervision" means 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 - Leash - § 51-3-145. Certain acts unlawful at state parks. This South Carolina law contains a dog leash provision that states that it is unlawful for any person to bring 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 (see section P). This provision concerns any park or facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.

Pages