Florida's Dangerous Dog Law 727 - What's wrong with it?
It seems like Florida's Dangerous Dog Law was hastily passed and not very well written. There does not seem to be any political capital behind changing it, so it has remained pretty much the same. So what would make it better?
1. A uniform dangerous dog definition would be required - counties would not be able to change the defintion to suit the current politics - the definition would be clear and fair;
2. Provocation would be a defense to any dangerous dog classification - not just a human interaction - and provocation would be broadly defined;
3. The first tier "hearing" would be given uniform rules closer to a trial than an informal hearing (with a clear standard of proof and burden of going forward on the government) or there would be a guaranteed a de novo hearing in front of a county court judge (with a clear standard of proof) - that way you would get a record in front of a real judge and a real trial;
4. The first tier hearing would be held by a board that included a veterinarian, behaviorist, breeder, layman, animal control person and an attorney;
5. Dogs not involved in a serious injury of a human would be able to stay home during classification and appeal;
6. Boarding fees would not be payable in the event an owner wins their appeal;
7. The appeals process would be clarified so owners know what court to file in and what kind of appeal they get.
These changes would fix most of the inequities I have seen but even these changes would require a great deal of compromise at the legislative level. The argument over definitions alone could derail the entire process. The only serious attempt to change dangerous dog law recently has been a yearly attmept to create breed specific legislation, and each year it has died in committee.
Without legislative change, we will have to challenge each municipality to meet due process through the defense of dangerous dogs.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
