Appendix 14 Proposed Dangerous Dog Determination and Order

• Library: Pet Law & Custody: Establishing a Worthy & Equitable Jurisprudence for the Evolving Family (ABA) (2017 Ed.)

Appendix 14 Proposed Dangerous Dog Determination and Order

Below is a proposed dangerous dog determination and order prepared pursuant to the hearing officer's request to incorporate both the state statute and the local ordinance language in an order following a death row dog hearing. In the underlying case, part of a child's ear was bit off by a one-year-old Akita. Personal identifiers, other than the author's and breed of dog, have been changed in this appendix. The destruct order was eventually vacated, following another favorable behavioral assessment of the dog by a veterinarian with behavioral expertise from the University of Minnesota.

The following proposed order may help the family lawyer learn about dangerous dog proceedings. This is why parties seeking to have any type of shared arrangement with a dog should be vigilant about potential perils. It is also important to realize that dangerous dog proceedings reflect the government exercising its police powers against what the U.S. Supreme Court, in Sentell v. New Orleans Carrollton Railroad Co.,¹ classified as quasi-property.

STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

HENNEPIN COUNTY

Superb Animal Care and Control,

vs.

Craig Cooper.

DANGEROUS DOG DETERMINATION AND ORDER

This matter first came on before Administrative Hearing Officer Frank Franklin on January 1, 2010 at Superb Animal Care and Control, which is an animal control authority located at 123 Street, Minneapolis, MN 55408.

Sarah Nelson appeared on behalf of Superb Animal Care and Control. Barbara J. Gislason appeared as the attorney for Craig Cooper, the owner of a dog named Spirit. Others present at this first scheduled hearing were Sam and Stacy Thompson, Craig Cooper, Nancy Cooper, Mallory Swanson, Penelope Potter, and Betsy Winter.

At the time of this first hearing, notwithstanding a written request, animal expert Penelope Potter was not afforded the opportunity to perform an assessment on Spirit. It was for this reason that the court granted the request of attorney Barbara J. Gislason for a continuance so that an evaluation by Potter could be performed.

Accordingly, the hearing was continued to January 16, 2010. Appearing at the second hearing were Steven Baker for the City of Minneapolis and Craig Cooper's attorney, Barbara J. Gislason. Also appearing were Craig Cooper, Nancy Cooper, Mallory Swanson, Officer Eric Hanson, and Penelope Potter.

After having been fully advised in the premises and upon all the files and records herein, the hearing officer makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Based upon an incident on December 15, 2009 wherein a child suffered substantial bodily harm, without provocation, on public property, the City of Minneapolis issued Destruct Order #DES123 for a dog named Spirit on December 20, 2009.

2. Once the declaration with regard to Spirit was issued by citation on December 20, 2009, Superb Animal Care and Control properly seized Spirit.

3. Pursuant to Minneapolis appeal hearing procedures, Craig Cooper timely submitted his request in writing for a hearing. After said request, a hearing was promptly scheduled. The hearing was then rescheduled based upon the request of Barbara J. Gislason after the required time period was waived on the record. The proceeding was properly heard before Hearing Officer Frank Franklin.

4. At the hearing on January 16, 2010, the City of Minneapolis offered into evidence the following: Administrative Citation, Notice of Rabies Quarantine, Notification of Destruct Order, Destruct Order Hearing Request, Owner Notification of Declaration Appeal Hearing, Minneapolis Police Department Case Report with Supplements, Report of Animal Bite or Incident, and Superb Animal Care and Control Narrative and Supplemental Report, together with photographs of minor David Thompson's injuries.

5. Barbara J. Gislason objected to the introduction of the reports based upon In Re Molly, 712 N.W.2d 567 (Minn.App.2006), an opinion that addressed evidentiary standards. This Hearing Officer agreed that this was a valid objection.

6. Barbara J. Gislason also objected to the administrative process as there was no information available about what procedures would be used for the hearing in advance of the hearing. This Hearing Officer agreed that this was a valid objection.

7. Craig Cooper first called Nancy Cooper as a witness. She testified about how she and her brother had selected Spirit from a breeder and communicated with the breeder about proper care of Spirit, who was purchased by her brother. She described both of their ongoing efforts to properly socialize and train Spirit. She indicated Spirit had a history of good behavior, including taking treats directly from people's hands, especially 12 young children from a school program where she volunteered in March 2009. She expressed her willingness to help her...