Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> other animals being walked on a leash, or vehicles even if the animal never leaves the <br /> owner's property, except that this provision shall not apply if such animal is <br /> restrained by a pen, fence, or other secure enclosure. . . . <br /> Id. § 4-45(b)(2). If owners fail to abate a public nuisance, Animal Services can impound the <br /> animal or order the animal removed from the county. Id. § 4-45(c)(2)-(3). Animal Services has <br /> taken both actions in the past. Taken together, the dangerous-animal and public-nuisance laws <br /> address most of Mr. Williams' concerns. <br /> A further centerpiece of Mr. Williams' proposal is granting animal control officers more <br /> discretion to designate a dog as dangerous and/or to order protective measures like muzzling and <br /> close restraint. But this is a transparent violation of the constitutional guaranties of due process. <br /> See U.S. Const. amends. V&XIV, § 1;N.C. Const. Art. 1, § 17. While the issue does not appear <br /> to have arisen in North Carolina, courts in several other states have held that due process requires <br /> specific findings to declare a dog as dangerous, as well as requiring an opportunity for hearing <br /> and appeal. E.g.,Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 2012); State v. Cowan, <br /> 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). <br /> Animal Services clearly has a responsibility to ensure the public safety, but it must balance this <br /> responsibility with its obligations towards animal owners and their companion animals. Orange <br /> County already has some of the strictest dangerous-animal regulations in the state. In defining <br /> potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs, the regulations go beyond the criteria used in state <br /> law—upon which most local jurisdictions solely rely. This has not been popular with everyone: <br /> Animal Services and the ASAB encountered some resistance when proposing the current <br /> language in the Unified Animal Control Ordinance, and have heard from residents who believe <br /> that the ordinance already goes too far in regulating family dogs and watch dogs. Mr. Williams' <br /> proposal would upset the careful balance between competing interests that the Unified Animal <br /> Control Ordinance represents. <br /> For these reasons, we recommend that the ASAB take no action on Mr. Williams' proposal. <br /> 2 <br />