[Dewey-Darrow] Dog attack: Greenleaf & Florence: Summary

[Bearhair]

Sandy wrote:

>You will all be interested in knowing that according to Watch Commander
>Berman, this pit bull is already "officially classified as "a vicious
>animal" and  the owners are "required to have a $100,000 insurance policy"
>and it is "private property on private property "so the police cannot
>impound the dog!  Can you believe it?????  This is all beyond my
>comprehension!

Sandy, how did the hospital handle the issue of the dog being potentially
rabid? Did the Police provide you proof of vaccination?

As I posted earlier, according to the City Code (my comments in CAPS):

9-4-17: DANGEROUS DOGS:

(C)Off Premises: No person owning or harboring or having the care of a
dangerous dog shall suffer or permit such dog to go beyond the premises of
such person unless such dog is securely muzzled and restrained with a chain
capable of restraining the dog and not exceeding three feet (3') in 
length. . . .

<<<<< OOPS!  VIOLATED THIS ONE!

(F)Insurance: Any person owning or harboring or having the care of any
dangerous dog shall maintain a policy of insurance in an amount not less than
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) insuring said person against any
claim, loss, damage or injury to persons, domestic animals, or property
resulting from the acts of the dangerous dog. Said insurance policy shall be
separate and distinct from any homeowner's insurance policy. Such person
shall produce evidence of such insurance upon the request of a police officer
or animal warden and shall present evidence of such insurance as a condition
to obtaining a dog license. (Ord. 50-0-08) . . . 

<<<<< SANDY - THE POLICE SHOULD PROVIDE THE INSURANCE INFO TO YOU SO THAT YOU
CAN SUE THE OWNERS FOR YOUR MEDICAL EXPENSES ETC.

(G)Violation: In the event that a police officer or animal warden has
probable cause to believe that a dangerous dog is being harbored or cared for
in violation of subsection (B), (C), or (D) of this section, he or she may
petition a court of competent jurisdiction to order the seizure and
impoundment of the dangerous dog pending trial. In the event that a police
officer or animal warden has probable cause to believe that a dangerous dog
is being harbored or housed in violation of subsection (C) or (D) of this
section, he or she may seize and impound the dangerous dog pending trial.
(Ord. 70-0-87) . . . 

<<<<< THE SECOND SENTENCE SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE TO
WAIT FOR A COURT ORDER TO IMPOUND THE DOG.

(I)Penalty:

1. a. Whoever violates this section, except for subsection (B)3 of this
section, shall be fined in an amount not less than two hundred dollars
($200.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) per charge. Whoever is
found guilty of a second offense of violating this section shall be guilty of
a class C misdemeanor and may be imprisoned up to thirty (30) days and shall
be fined five hundred dollars ($500.00), which fine shall be mandatory and
shall not be suspended or remitted. Whoever is found guilty of violating this
section more than two (2) times shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and
may be imprisoned for a term in excess of thirty (30) days but less than six
(6) months and shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500.00), which fine
shall not be suspended or remitted. A violation of subsection (B)3 of this
section shall cause a mandatory fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) to be imposed
on the person found guilty of such offense. . . .

<<<<< IT LOOKS LIKE THE OWNER MIGHT BE LOOKING AT JAIL TIME.

2. Any dangerous dog which attacks a human being or another domestic animal
may be ordered destroyed when in the court's judgment, such dangerous dog
represents a continuing threat of serious harm to human beings or other
domestic animals.

<<<<< THIS DOES REQUIRE A COURT ORDER.

Lora