Iowa Congress.org
"A Place for Pet Ownership Freedom to Grow."
Animal Control Beware
Dog Seizure Due Process
How Does Due Process Apply to Dog Seizure/Euthanasia Cases?
Despite the fact that animals are still considered property in all legal jurisdictions today, due process, whether rooted in the federal or state constitutions, extends to “life, liberty, or property.” The more complicated issue, however, is how much process is due? The Supreme Court has promulgated a four prong test to determine this. In each situation, a court must weigh the following:
- the private interest affected by the official action
- the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used,
- the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and
- the government interest involved.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
Due process requires the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Rabon v. City of Seattle (Rabon II), 107 Wash.App. 734, 743 (2001) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333). Thus, when individuals can show they will suffer irreparable harm from a post-deprivation hearing, courts have recognized that a pre-deprivation hearing is necessary. In the case of orders to euthanize pets, many courts have considered the loss to the pet owner as irreparable.
Before the Hearing: Filing a Petition for a Preliminary Injunction
Dog owners should file a petition for an injunction to delay the killing of the dog until they have had the chance to be heard in court (For an actual example, see Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in the case of Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990), which involved a Pit Bull named "Max" who was impounded and classified as “dangerous” because he allegedly killed the neighbor’s dog. The Circuit Court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted and enjoined the city from killing or otherwise harming Max. The court ordered the city to release Max and change his “dangerous” designation to “potentially dangerous.”).
Overriding the Decision - Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
Due process includes more than just going through the motions of a hearing. In fact, even after hearings have been granted, decisions can be challenged as a prejudicial abuse of discretion that is not based on findings of fact or law. (This is what the owners of “Boo,” a bullmastiff who allegedly bit a child, argued in Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)). In this case, owners should file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, a judicial remedy issued by a superior court to compel a government officer to do or forbear from doing a specific act, to delay the euthanasia order until the appeal can be heard. This writ of mandamus applies in any situation in which the euthanasia should be stayed, including scenarios in which an original hearing was never given.
Minimum Standards of Due Process for the Hearing
It is now also clear that hearings must meet certain minimum standards. Informal reviews that animal control agencies frequently provide upon the dog owner’s request often do not fulfill these requirements, because the decision-maker may not be qualified to render the judgment or may not be impartial if he also made the original decision to euthanize the dog. For example, in Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept., 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist.,1986), the owners of “Missy,” a black lab known to have a bad habit of biting children, contested the city’s decision to euthanize her. The amicus brief filed by Joyce Tischler of the Animal Legal Defense Fund pointed out the Municipal Codes at issue did not provide for the Animal Regulation Director’s orders to be reviewed by the Chief Sanitarian of the County Health Department or the supervising environmental health officer, the two individuals who presided over the first and second hearings.
Challenges to the Ordinance Itself
In fact, many city ordinances are flawed in that they fail to specify that owners are entitled to hearings before their pets are euthanized. These municipal codes can be challenged as unconstitutional and, even if the city already granted hearings that met minimum due process standards, the decision to euthanize the pet would still have to be overturned. Otherwise, whether dog owners generally would receive due process would be at the whim of the animal control agency, and the city could avoid having to correct its municipal codes simply by voluntarily giving all dog owners a hearing. The court of appeals in Missy’s case agreed, concluding “that the ordinances here are unconstitutional for failure to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog.”
Most recently, in a landmark case, the court of appeals in Mansour v. King County, 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) held that due process required even more than offering owners a hearing, ordering that “an agency seeking to enforce a removal order must prove both the violation and the remedy it has imposed by a preponderance of the evidence.” This is the same standard of proof imposed on the government when it attempts to temporarily remove a child from the custody of his parents. By instituting a burden of proof on the city, the court was essentially finding that the dog must be presumed innocent until the city can prove otherwise. Previously, there had been no standard of proof, and reviewing courts would only look to see if Animal Control had acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus, even the most minimal evidence that a dog should be removed would suffice, and owners would bear the burden of proving their pets innocent. Moreover, the court found that due process attached not only for orders to euthanize an animal, but also for orders of removal outside the county (Peter Mansour had been ordered to remove his dog from the county or turn his dog over to the city to be euthanized after his dog was accused of killing a cat).
Finally, the court held that due process required Mansour to have the ability to subpoena records and witnesses in his defense, and that the Notice and Order of Violation had to specify exactly what code provisions had been violated. Merely issuing a “brief and concise description of the conditions for finding the violation… is insufficient.” Mansour was “entitled to know ahead of time exactly what the County needed to prove at the Board hearing. If in fact it could not prove that Maxine violated a code provision that supported the removal order, he [Mansour] was entitled to know that in time to move for a dismissal at the Board level.” Source Reference: Animal Legal and Historical Center.
There are some significant problems with dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.
1. They do not reduce the number of dog bites. By focusing on the after-effects of a bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent bites. In theory, the risk of punishment is a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous. So the perception is that these laws are for other dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a bite occurs, that particular owner may face additional liability, but his friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs.
2. The laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites. What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an undersocialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are.
What it comes down to is this.
Dangerous dog laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that they are taking action.
Article LINK:
http://IowaCongress.org/
ar_outrage.html
Web Site Legal Disclaimer:
Postings are provided to give readers information and are not intended as legal advice.
All individuals are urged to contact licensed attorneys in their states regarding specific legal issues.
Aren't "We, the People" the government?
Aren't "We, the People" the government?
Whatever happened to 'We the People' to take care of all our pets and animals, let alone all our people in this nation?
By DogLaw - Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom, 27 Dec 08
We the people...
The traditional American story is the story of We the People.
As Americans, the most important part of our social identity is our role as citizens. To be a citizen means to be part of, and a de- fender of, the commons of our nation. The water we drink, the air we breathe, the streets we drive on, the schools that we use, the departments that protect us -- these are all the physical commons. And there are also the cultural commons -- the stories we tell ourselves, our histories, our religions, and our notions of ourselves. And there are the commons of our power systems (in the majority of American communities) which is our electronic and gas commons, and the commons of 'fair and balanced' investigative reporting of our radio and TV spectrum to keep the corrupt politics in check, along with the free speech and publishing by all citizens of the world and our nation on the Internet. Most important for citizenship is the commons of government -- the creation and the servant of We the People.
Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this commons. In his "Four Freedoms" speech, he said, "Necessitous men are not free men." Hungry people aren't free people, no matter what you want to call them. Hungry people can't be good citizens: they're too busy taking care of the hungry part of themselves to care about the citizen part. That is what "we the people" should be, but today it is not that; the commons. This nation is no longer a constitutional based free society common, let alone any common at all.
Republicans and Democrats as a party direction, are all alike, and are all allegedly corrupt and self-serving to the socialistic commons and one world order goal to be governed by a one world government and religion, under the United Nations. We the People are now bound to the corporate government goals that want to fund FDR's social safety net (now to be called Barrack OBAMA's social safety net) because they fundamentally do not believe in the concept of constitutional freedom of 'We the People' in collectively protecting all of us in anything other than a military/police way called tyranny. FDR and the new 2008 OBAMA backers don't believe that "the rabble" should run the country. They want big corporations to run the commons of our nation and to be inter-mixed into our government itself which is called socialism.
The Republicans and the Democrats are now, no longer two separate free thinking parties, but one party playing a 'dog and pony' show to deceive 'we the people' in thinking the citizens actually have a choice for freedom in elections and decisions of the commons. This new one party system (in actuality), a 'dog and pony' show' common political party thinks that the most appropriate role for citizens is that of infantilized consumers -- only here to serve the government in paying their demanded taxes, fees, fines, confiscations, and ultimately 'slave labor' of both commercial products and commercially produced political packaging of our constitution and laws effecting everything from pets, to people, to all our common good -- the commons.
This is the new fundamental debate in our society: Are we a nation of citizens or a nation of consumers? Are we a democracy run by citizens, or are we a corporatocracy that holds consumers locked in dependency by virtue of their consumption and need to be infantized by apathy, trickery, fraud deceit, and ultimately a one world order style government under the world's United Nations?
Consumerism appeals to the greedy and selfish child part of us, the infantilized part that just wants someone else to take care of us. The core message of most commercials is that "you are the most important person in the world." Commercial advertising almost never mentions "we" or "us."
What is at stake today is the very future of our U.S. Constitution and our democratic republic. If we accept an identity as fearful, infantilized consumers in always accepting the perverted laws against our pets and animals, and then subsequently we the people in bastardized laws destroying our original U.S. Constitution, we will be acting from our baby part and allowing corporate - government America and an increasingly tyranny of an authoritarian government to fill the role of a parent part in every aspect of our lives in America.
The story we are told is that we should surrender all of our power to government - corporations and just let them govern us because a mystical but all-knowing godlike force called "the BUSH and OBAMA dictated free markets of the new FDR" will eventually solve all of our problems.
That truth in this common definition of we the people, fits in very well with all the liberals and the conservatives (now a one party 'dog and pony show' ideology system) which is now the other story: that we are children who need to be protected from evil by humans such as animal rights, animal eating, animal husbandry, animal laws, animal ordinances, NAIS, animal identification for disease identification, etc.; and because corporations and governments (now combined as one entity) are now amoral and not human, they are intrinsically and morally superior to evil humans called citizens or in other words not politically correct, called 'We the People'.
Aren't "We, the People" the government? - Part 2 of 2
Aren't "We, the People" the government? - Part 2 of 2
To save democracy we must crack that religious code of destiny of the coming Mark of the Beast' scenario we the people are headed for in our own lifetime and bring back the original U.S. Constitutional and spirit and action of the 'Declaration of Independence' code so well understood by our Founders of this nation: that we're a country of barn-builders, of communities, of intrinsically good people who work together for the common good and the common wealth in freedom, not under tyranny or socialism of the corporate - government consuming freebee welfare tradition. We begin this process by speaking to the responsible part of us, the part that enjoys being grown up and socially responsible. And also preparing to 'stand your ground' when tyranny comes knocking on your own door. We the People need to prepare to survive without the help of corporate - government intervention in our lives. Because very shortly, one fine day, the corporate - government is going to collapse, and then reform into the one world order, under the United Nations economy, and destined for a One world order, "Mark of the Beast."
The story we have to tell is the story of citizenship derived from our best and most noble parts. It's the story of We the People sadly now disappearing along with the common freedom and liberty being stolen from the citizens by perverted animal control and people controlling laws and legislation daily as we speak.
We talk a lot about the features of citizenship, like the right to vote but when the corporate - government makes it so expensive to even be a candidate, let alone the media destroying fine new people like 'Joe the plumber' or Sarah Palin as new candidates, then there is no right to vote, but we sometimes forget what the benefits of a truly free society really were.
The main benefit of citizenship is freedom -- not freedom from external or internal dangers (although that is included in the package, it's only one of the six purposes listed in the Preamble to the Constitution), but freedom to think as we want, to pray as we want, to say what we want, and to live as we want to fulfill our true potential as humans (the other five things listed in the Preamble) which are centered around the ultimate protection of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness on our own private property, protected from the tyranny of unconstitutional government intrusion of we the people and our private property, the animals.
The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values on which it was founded, or will we the people be 'marked' like we now are marking our beasts. It's all about the Spirit of God or the Devil to control us through our 'commons'. Like it or not.
President Thomas Jefferson, who beat Adams in the "Revolution of 1800" election, rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could -- as Adams had -- throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, and without constitutional due process.
"I know, indeed," that some honest men and women fear that a free and constitutional common government cannot be strong any longer with the onslaught of the OBAMA style FDR socialism, apathy and desire for a welfare government - corporation system to provide all consumer goods; that this government is not strong enough." But, Jefferson in 1800, said our nation was "the world's best hope" precisely because we put our trust in We the People.
Until We the People, trust again in God's laws and that of the U.S. Constitution in its original form, to keep corporations out of government power, and to limit the legislation making powers and out of control citizen taxing and tyranny out of control spending of the government, we the people, ARE NOT the government. We the People, in their eyes, are the enemy of the corporate - government.
God help us all.
Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
by Dean A. Ayers
DogPressOrg@...
http://AnimalsClubFreedom.us/
"United States Officially Certified Site"
Dean A. Ayers is a prior United States Air Force Special Agent for the AFOSI. His duties included that of law enforcement specialist, criminal, fraud, and counter-intelligence. He was assigned to felony crimes in federal government, fraud, waste and abuse investigations of the military branches of service, and counter-intelligence in overseas locations. Dean was also a former Texas State Commissioned Alamo State Park Armed Ranger.
Dean is currently Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization and Dean is also a Lead Investigative Reporter for the NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©, DogPress.org, and Animalid.biz news press services.
Fair Use Notice: Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Navigation
Services
