Minutes 11-01-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9 Pasquotank counties, require 36 months to pass without incident before a declaration can be reviewed. Also, a review of relatively recent violations of Ordinance restrictions on dangerous animals resulting in criminal summons revealed that, of eight violations, four occurred less than one year from the declaration, and four occurred more than one year from the declaration. Of the four occurring more than one year from the declaration, two violations occurred approximately two years after declaration, and the other two violations occurred three or more years after the declaration. Further, the following table shows the number of dangerous dog and/or animal declarations made for the period 2016 to 2018. The declarations reported in the table are made under state law, local ordinance or both. The bites all involve reports Animal Services has received about a dog biting one or more people (as these bites are required to be reported under state law). Declarations Dog Bites 2018 (YTD) 40 109 2017 44 195 2016 23 163 As the table shows, the number of declarations each year is often upwards of 50. These declarations are often but not always made on the basis of a dog bite. In some instances, they are made as a result of injury caused by a dog to another domestic animal off its owner’s property. In others, they are made on the basis of a dog behaving aggressively toward a person off of its owner’s property. Finally, the issues addressed on appeal of a dangerous animal declaration are different than those addressed by the proposed review. An appeal is made to the hearing panel pool and then Superior Court immediately following a declaration, in order to determine if the incident forming the basis of the declaration (often, a bite to a person or other animal) occurred and justified the declaration under statute and/or Ordinance. The declaration may be overturned if the hearing panel or a judge determines the incident did not occur or the elements of the offense as defined in the Ordinance have not been met. A review is made with the understanding that the incident occurred and justified the declaration (which actually may have been appealed). However, the review examines not only the severity of the underlying facts but several other factors, including measures taken by the owner since the declaration to prevent reoccurrence, to determine whether a similar incident is likely to happen again, and if there does not appear to be a continued risk to the public safety, the declaration can be rescinded following review. 3. Animal Control Officers raised concerns about their authority under the Ordinance to impound animals subject to cruel treatment, as Section 4-41(k), Mistreatment of animals, could be read as allowing for only the impoundment of animals subject to tethering. The language, “[an animal] that is in imminent danger,” has been added to the general impoundment authority and process in Section 4-43 in order to clarify this authority. As described in new paragraph 4-38(c) and as required by law, such animals would only be impounded pursuant to consent, a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement.