LAWS ABOUT DOGS 



provisions which ordinarily would govern, 

 are swept aside under certain conditions. 



The U. S. Constitution provides that 

 property cannot be taken without due 

 process of law. It must be seized only 

 according to the provisions clearly pro- 

 vided for in the law. Such provision is 

 set aside in certain cases and property 

 seized and destroyed without violating any 

 provisions of the law. 



In the Illinois Supreme Court decision. 

 People v. Anderson, 189 NE 338 (1934), 

 the court at some length set forth the 

 supremacy of public welfare concerning 

 the destruction and impounding of animals 

 injurious to public health. 



2. Muzzle and Leash 



Most city or local ordinances require 

 that a dog must be muzzled on the street 

 and in other public places, in hotels, 

 stores, apartment hallways and the like, 

 unless on leash. Also that all dogs must 

 we.ar collars and the license tag be affixed 

 thereto. Also that bitches in heat, 

 whether muzzled or not, can not run at 

 large. 



The ordinance of the city of Baltimore 

 adopted in 1908 (a very good ordinance) 

 states that a dog shall be considered run- 

 ning at large "when such dog is upon any 

 street, lane, alley or public way or place, 

 is not held by chain, or is not in leash, in 

 such manner as to prevent the dog from 

 biting any persons or animals, or is not 

 securely muzzled so as to effectively pre- 

 vent it from biting any person or animal." 



The grant of authority that dogs should 

 be muzzled is presented in the decision in 

 the case of People vs. Warden, 153 N. Y. 

 S. 468. 



The Buffalo, N. Y,, ordinance (in many 

 ways an ideal one) states that "A dog 

 shall not be deemed to be at large if 

 accompanied by and under the full con- 

 trol of the owner." 



3. The Dog as a Nuisance 



The dog, tho property and tho one has 

 paid a license to keep the dog (not neces- 

 sarily to own him), may become a nuis- 

 ance by way of a menace to health and 

 quiet thru the owner not keeping the dog's 

 quarters clean, or by way of noise, such 

 as needless, excessive barking, or by way 

 of biting, or threatening to bite or by 

 barking at passersby. 



Barking in itself is not a nuisance. Ex- 

 cessive and untimely barking or both may 

 be declared a nuisance. 



In most states the dog can not be or- 

 dered put to death because he is merely 

 a nuisance, tho ofttimes petty magistrates 

 such as justices of the peace, so decree. 



It is necessary that a warrant be issued 

 against the owner of a dog before the 

 owner can be brot into court for conduct- 

 ing a nuisance. This warranty must be 

 sworn out by a citizen or by police officer. 

 Also the mere issuance and serving of the 

 warrant does not indicate any guilt. 



The situation is one for trial in open 

 court. Usually these warrants are issued 

 upon the request of some neighbor who 

 himself really may be a nuisance instead 

 of the dogs complained against. 



Consequently, these cases should be 

 fought to the end for in most instances, 

 the dog owner will win. Neighbors should 

 be brot into court as witnesses who will 

 testify that the dogs or the kennels are 

 not nuisances in any way. 



Most disputes are matter for eourt 



action for damages, a civil suit: the pos- 

 session of the dog is not involved. If the 

 owner loses the suit, he pays damages in 

 dollars and cents to the other party. 

 4. Various Court Decisions on the 

 Nuisance Aspect 



Nuisances in themselves — per se — bring 

 an injunction immediately but dogs are 

 not in this group. See 90 Pac. (2nd) 

 988; 188 So. 849 (1939). Outstanding 

 case affecting a veterinary hospital, Tal- 

 bot, 189 So. 469 (1939). 



79 ALR 1067 ruled that ordinary per- 

 sons under ordinary conditions, are not 

 annoyed by a kennel so situated, it is not 

 a nuisance. 



Kindt 30 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 277 stated that 

 only persons living in close proximity to 

 the kennel location can complain ; merely 

 because some other person at a distance 

 is annoyed does not give that person the 

 right to complain in court. 



Other cases: Krebs, 6 Pac. (2d) 1907 — 

 a leading case ; Fuller, 114 Kan. 808 ; 

 Hwck, Pa. Dist. R. 791. In the last men- 

 tioned, the court said: "One dog if suf- 

 ficiently persistent may make as much 

 noise as a dozen dogs. . . . The owner of 

 dogs should so train them that they will 

 not bark and yelp except in cases of 

 burglary or fire." 



A city ordinance providing that dogs 

 must not disturb persons who are ill was 

 declared void (Heyman, 27 App. D.C. 663) 

 because impractical as any one at a dis- 

 tance who heard a faint dog bark could 

 claim annoyance. 



5. Dog Found 



When a dog is taken up because run- 

 ning at large, contrary to specific provi- 

 sions of the local or state law, there must 

 also be a provision in the law concerning 

 the final disposition of the dog. Very few 

 ordinances state the manner of death ; a 

 number of them state "in a humane way." 

 There is no authority for selling or other- 

 wise disposing of dogs at the end of the 

 impounding period, unless provision clearly 

 is made in the law itself. 



Also the extent of the period during 

 which the dog is held at the dog pound 

 varies. In times of quarantine on account 

 of rabies, the period may be reduced to 

 24 hours. Usually it is five days. If the 

 dog bears a license tag, the pound must 

 make an immediate effort to get in touch 

 with the owner. 



The dog must be redeemed by the pay- 

 ment of arrest costs, which usually aver- 

 age about $1.50. If the dog is not licensed, 

 the license fee must be paid at the time. 



The fact that a dog is licensed but is 

 running at large contrary to provisions of 

 the ordinance does not prevent the dog 

 from being picked up and taken to the 

 pound (Commonwealth v. Flynn, 258, 

 Mass. 136). 



6. Health Examination and Interstate 

 Shipments 



Health examinations are required by 

 states (none by the Federal Government) 

 only for dogs coming within their borders 

 unless from an area quarantined within 

 the state. No certificate is required for a 

 dog in transit thru a state requiring 

 examination. Canada, no requirement. 



Alabama. Alaska, Conn., Florida. Georgia. 

 Illinois, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, MichiKan. 

 Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New 

 Jersey, N. Y., North Dakota, Okla., 



