# Dangerous Dog Law violates the ADA?



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

Saginaw, MI, recently passed a Dangerous Dog ordinance that would require owners of certain breeds, including German Shepherds, and any mixes that "look like" certain breeds, to register their dogs for an additional fine and provide certain types of containment and other hoops to jump through.

The original wording of the dog ordinance can be found at - http://www.saginaw-mi.com/Government/Departments/CityCouncil/Proposed Dog Ordinance.pdf - but I am not sure whether this is or is not the final version.

In the exceptions, the following text is found, emphasis mine -



> § 94.13 EXCLUSIONS
> The following are excluded from complying with the terms and conditions of this ordinance:
> (A) Guide/service and law enforcement dogs, however, the owner of such dog, upon request, *must provide
> pictured identification certifying that the dog was trained by a qualified organization or trainer*.


Last I checked, it would be a violation of the law to require pictured identification certifying a Service Dog, and it is not a requirement under federal law that the dog needs to be trained by a qualified organization or a specific Service Dog trainer.

Opinions?


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

This is getting shocking. Maybe I should return my GSD pup and get myself a lovely little spaniel. Maybe if I dye my dog pink he won't look threatening (just kidding, I don't dye my dog). Not good.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I did not see this when I originally read the ordinance, and I couldn't agree with you more. I would be bringing all sorts of paperwork into their offices if I were disabled with a service dog and would NOT be paying.


----------



## beaderdog (Dec 23, 2010)

A state or municipality may grant more rights than the federal statute, but cannot create more restrictions. If someone forced the issue I'm reasonably certain that portion of the ordinance would be struck down.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It seems like sometime the G-word has nothing better to spend tax money on than passing bad legislation that will stand until it is challenged, and then more tax money will be spent in the over-burdened court system. 

Maybe the answer is to give the G-word only enough money to provide what the G-word is put in place to do. Shoot down every tax-increase, every levy, until the g-word is hurting, and has to really think twice before wasting tax money enforcing bad laws, or putting through bad legislation. 

So now, in order to try not to get P-word, I will duck out.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Several areas around the county have passed these laws. Of course Fed. law says breed bans do not pertain to SDs, BUT some SDs have been confiscated and in several cases were put down before things could be sorted out.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

ILGHAUS said:


> Several areas around the county have passed these laws. Of course Fed. law says breed bans do not pertain to SDs, BUT some SDs have been confiscated and in several cases were put down before things could be sorted out.


I can't believe that is even possible. So much about having freedom. 

If somebody can confiscate your dog and put it down without reasoning... :help:


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

You know... if there was some certification to prove it was a service dog- then things like that might not happen. Just saying... :lurking:


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

wildo said:


> You know... if there was some certification to prove it was a service dog- then things like that might not happen. Just saying... :lurking:


I did not want to say it first. :surrender:


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Mrs.K said:


> I did not want to say it first. :surrender:


Honestly, I won't say anymore about it, at least not in this thread. We had that battle last night. I'm going back to the movie I'm watching...


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Funny how its the person who illegally passed off his dog as a SD in the past that is now pushing for certification. 

Or maybe thats the reason, because its not YOUR fault you passed your dog off as a SD. Now if there was a certification you never would have done it


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Lin said:


> Funny how its the person who illegally passed off his dog as a SD in the past that is now pushing for certification.
> 
> Or maybe thats the reason, because its not YOUR fault you passed your dog off as a SD. Now if there was a certification you never would have done it


No- what's funny is how you and your good pal Rerun can't seem to get over it. As if you've never done something illegal before. Go  yourself and move on. I'm sick of hearing about it...


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I don't know anything about Rerun, but its frustrating for someone who has admittedly taken advantage of laws to assist the disabled be arguing that more rights should be taken away from the disabled. Rerun is not disabled or a service dog user.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

But she brings it up just as much as you. I'm sick of hearing about it. You don't know me. You've never met me. She's met me for one, single class- she doesn't know me either. Go find the thread- I clearly admitted that I didn't realize it was illegal. I also admitted that I hadn't done it again since you guys informed me of such. So move on... Get over it. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.

And never have I argued to take away the rights of the disabled. Nonsense.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Well if she brings it up, that would be between you and her. But then I don't believe I've brought it up before so I'm not entirely sure how many times "just as much as you" refers to. And not knowing you or meeting you has nothing to do with it. I haven't met 99.9% of board members. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to speak my mind about something. 

You've argued for mandatory registration/certification of service dogs. Thats taking away rights of the disabled. Its been explained to you by many people in many ways. ILGHAUS even started another thread to better explain the ADA. If you have such an issue with topics surrounding service dogs, maybe you should avoid the section.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Lin said:


> But that doesn't mean I'm not going to speak my mind about something.
> 
> If you have such an issue with topics surrounding service dogs, maybe you should avoid the section.


Perhaps I won't avoid the section, but instead will follow your cue and speak my mind about it. And not one time have I argued for taking away the rights of the disabled.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

You're arguing for registration and certification which if implemented takes away the rights of the disabled. That means you're arguing for taking away the rights of the disabled. Think of it as a mathematical proof.


----------



## chudsosoft (Feb 9, 2010)

Wildo knows nothing about service animals and the laws involved and refuses your attempts to inform him. I don't know why you bother.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

What I refuse is to buy into logical fallacies.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Could we just not get personal, for once?


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Well, I didn't start it. But if someone is going to try to defame my character (when they don't even know me) then I sure as ....... will defend myself.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

OK everyone, let's keep this a civil discussion. 

The problem under discussion is a two fold one. First is breed ban itself which on the surface is not a SD topic but a general dog (or rather the owning of dogs) issue.

Next, is keeping certain breed SDs safe. 

Maybe if we try to steer this topic with the slant on SDs we can at least begin within the topic lines which Chris started it.


----------



## kiwilrdg (Aug 26, 2010)

I really think the lawmakers do not understand the existing laws.

I have been involved with restaurant boycotts due to SD refusal before I started reading this forum but I didn't realize how complex the issue really is. I really have only gotten a general understanding of the ADA from this forum. I would never have heard about the conflicting laws and constant actions if it were not for this forum. 

As for the anger over fake SDs. Please let it rest in this thread. I would rather have a hundred fake SDs around but all real SD handlers having access to facilities than to have ONE real SD handler refused service in a restaurant. If you must flame, please start a new thread.


----------



## AutismDogGirl (Oct 7, 2010)

This deffinatly goes against Ada we are not required to certify our dogs. More over for 50 annoy one can get "certification" so it is kinda pointless.


----------



## Brighthorizondogs (May 31, 2010)

Ohh my shepherd is just soooooo dangerous..... she may lick you to death!!!


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

beaderdog said:


> A state or municipality may grant more rights than the federal statute, but cannot create more restrictions. If someone forced the issue I'm reasonably certain that portion of the ordinance would be struck down.


Not true at all--it's the opposite. They can't be more LAX then Federal, but they can certainly be stricter. You most definitnely have that mixed up.

Hwere the ADA is an exception that, I don't know. But state and local laws most defiintely be as restrictive as they'd like


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I think the confusion is because of the difference between local laws in other forms, and local laws about service dogs. For example, the ADA says that you cannot be required to show certification or registration for public access. So, a state law cannot require you to show certification or registration (which would be stricter than the federal law). However.. A state law CAN require you to show certification or registration as a requirement for any additional protection under the law. For example the ADA gives absolutely no protection or rights to service dogs in training. So, if a state law offers protection for SDITs but requires some sort of registration you can't ask for the protection but deny the request for registration.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Lin, thanks for the clarification. I know on 90% of issues, state law can be more restrictive than federal, but I knew there were some issues where this wasn't the case (ie I know FLMA-related laws states cannot trump)...but others such as criminally-related laws state law always prevails over federal, even if it's 100x's stricter.


----------



## AutismDogGirl (Oct 7, 2010)

*ZDIT ca adage Bloch issues.*

Lin is correct. Unfortunately to few people realize this.

Sorry about the title accident


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I wonder what makes it different though, maybe ILGHAUS can help? Is it the difference between civil and criminal law? States can be stricter on criminal law, but cannot be stricter on civil law because it would then be violating the civil rights given by federal law?


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

As I understand it, there is no government system in place to certify a service dog, but there are organizations that can voluntairly certify your dog, am I correct?


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

There are no government systems or agencies to test, certify, or register a service dog; correct. 

There are organizations that can certify a service dog. Training organizations will certify that their dogs met their minimum standards for service dog training. Standards for training vary between organizations, and some are not considered reputable due to being even more lenient towards training than therapy dog organizations. There are also third party places that will sell you a certification or registration if you agree (check the box, sign the page) that your dog meets minimum requirements to be a service dog. 

These certifications mean nothing, whether they were from a credible training organization or a scam registry. According to federal law certification/registration/IDs are not required for public access, and employees may not ask for these or any other types of paperwork.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Yes. But it's basically worth as much as the paper it's printed on (from a legal standpoint).


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Lin said:


> These certifications mean nothing, whether they were from a credible training organization or a scam registry. According to federal law certification/registration/IDs are not required for public access, and employees may not ask for these or any other types of paperwork.


What's to stop Joe Blow from claiming his dog is a "service dog" simply so that he can take it inside stores, etc.?


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Freestep said:


> What's to stop Joe Blow from claiming his dog is a "service dog" simply so that he can take it inside stores, etc.?


Nothing except for the law. A store employee CAN ask the dog handler if the dog is a service dog, and what tasks it performs. If the owner cannot efficiently answer these questions (the handler should be able to rattle off the tasks easily)- the employee can ask the person to leave. If there is an issue, I believe authorities can be notified to further handle the situation. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of these threads how much the authorities (read: police) can ask of the hander. That said, if the handler chooses to take the store to court- the judge has all kinds of power in confirming the dog is a true SD.

(Lin- perhaps I am misquoting something I saw you say somewhere else concerning the judge thing. Would this be a situation where the handler takes the store to court, or where the store take the handler to court? Either way- the judge has all kinds of authority in such cases...)


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

wildo said:


> That said, if the handler chooses to take the store to court- the judge has all kinds of power in confirming the dog is a true SD.


I guess that's where the voluntary certification would come in handy.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Freestep said:


> What's to stop Joe Blow from claiming his dog is a "service dog" simply so that he can take it inside stores, etc.?


The fact that doing so means they are commiting fraud. The fact that doing so can result in jail time and a fine. The fact that doing so may result in being sued by the store. The fact that doing so may result in being sued by a shopper if something happened. The fact that they are also breaking health codes (which have their own punishments) if food is involved. 

HOPEFULLY, the fact that what they're doing is WRONG and potentially damaging to actual service dog users who NEED their dogs to get things done. 

If a store knows their rights they can get a good idea of if someone is faking or not and deny them access. If the person is an actual service dog handler and decides to sue the store, the store has protected itself by having asked the appropriate questions and receiving answers that left doubt. If a dog is acting out or causing a disturbance in anyway the business may ask them to leave regardless of if the SD is legitimate or not. A SD is not allowed to sniff food, track filth around, bark, lunge, growl, and so forth. 

If a case is presented in court the person will have to prove their dogs status as a service dog no matter what. This will require first proving they are legally, not just medically, disabled and so fall under the ADA. They then must prove their dogs status as a service dog. This will be by detailed records such as health and extensive training logs. The handler will have to demonstrate service tasks for the judge. And, these tasks must have been individually trained the mitigate the handlers disability. If they are disabled by schizophrenia and their dog opens doors, its not a SD. 

It can end up in court in a matter of ways. The handler may feel their rights were impinged on and take the business to court. The business may take the handler to court if they suspect they were faking, or if any problems were caused by the dog. Depending on the state, the prosecutor can charge the individual with fraud. I'm unsure of how health code violations are dealt with. 

Here is some information for business owners and employees: 
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.pdf
ADA Business Brief: Service Animals


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I guess that's where the voluntary certification would come in handy.


But it doesn't really, because again.....under law, it is not required, and it doesn't PROVE anything beyond the fact that somebody had a printer and gave you a piece of paper with words written on it.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Certification means nothing, so basically like Xeph said you might as well print it out yourself. You can buy a service dog ID voluntarily to make things easier. Its the same thing as patches for your bag. However its not necessary. I have a service dog ID from activedogs.com and patches my dog wears to help fend off potential conflicts. 

But when you go so far as certifications/papers, you may instill the false belief that these ARE required. And then make it harder for the next SD user who doesn't have them. I always make it clear to people when asked that the law states they cannot request "papers," certification, registration, and so forth.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Lin said:


> I wonder what makes it different though, maybe ILGHAUS can help? Is it the difference between civil and criminal law? States can be stricter on criminal law, but cannot be stricter on civil law because it would then be violating the civil rights given by federal law?


Civil laws are handled under a different system than are Criminal laws. A law enforcement officer can not arrest someone who violates a Civil Law. 

Criminal laws are handled under the system most of us are more aware of such as theft, trespassing, writing bad checks. A law enforcement officer can arrest on these.

You can not give a general statement that will cover all circumstances.

Federal Laws preempt conflicting State Laws in those areas where the Federal Government has authority per the Constitution. This is where *Plenary* power comes in. A pretty basic way to explain plenary power is where one group has the final say in the matter. An example often given is that of commerce. Federal law governs the action of transporting and selling across state lines and between the U.S. and other countries whereas State law governs the actions inside of their own state.

On the Fed vrs. State law level - a State can regulate and give broader rights to its citizens as long as these rights do not infringe on the rights of others given to them under Fed. law. 

*In my opinion,* on the matter of Breed Bans/Service Dogs there is a butting of heads between some states saying they are passing laws to protect their citizens vrs. thr Dept. of Justice under the ADA saying that by doing so they are potentially taking away the rights of PWDs the right to a broader range of breeds to choose a SD from. As far as I know, none of the individual states are pushing for breed bans, some just allow laws to be passed that leave the door open for counties in their state to pass breed ban laws. 

Florida currently has a law stating that there can be no breed ban laws other then Miami-Dade County (where they were grandfathered in) but each year there is a group trying to change this law. Several counties have passed breed ban laws and then there is a uproar from various citizens and organizations in overthrowing these new laws that are in conflict with the state law. 

(to be cont.)


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

There are various classifications of laws including tort, criminal, civil, family, and contract. They can be on the Federal or State level. Federal laws include statutory and regulatory laws.

Criminal Law (Penal law) - deals with crimes against the safety and welfare of the citizens within a certain area. The action is against the authority in that area. Individuals are arrested and may be sentenced to a jail or prison term and may have to pay fines.

Civil Law - deals with disputes or violations between individuals or an individual and a business or organization. Here someone who believes their right to shop, work, live or use services may bring a charge against a business or a group of individuals. 

In dealing with Service Dogs we would be looking mostly at civil laws. In most cases when a handler is told to leave with his SD because dogs are not allowed that is a civil law violation. Police do not have authority in this matter and can only respond to make sure there is no violent reactions from either side. There have been cases where the responding officer was not educated properly on the matter and crossed their line of authority.

Now, if say the manager of a restaurant tells someone that they must remove their dog because it is dirty (stinks, sits in the middle of the restaurant scratching away etc.) and the handler refuses to leave then the staff or management may have the police called to make the person leave. I believe (not positive) that this would be under Health Regulations. If the dog growls or jumps at people then the management could have the person forced to leave because of a safety issue. If the handler sits in the restaurant and doesn't order then the police could be called as this would be under trespassing - the same as if the person did not have a SD. 

Now going all around and going back to the original point -- The Dept. of Justice has said that breed bans do not effect SDs but the main worry is what can be done when AC is called and picks up your dog. Yes, you may be able to prove that you were in the right but there have been cases where this satisfaction is too late as the dog may have already been tossed into a dirty run with aggessive dogs or has been reported that in at least a few cases been euthanized. 

_If you have a question about a particular circumstance that you are going through it is always best to contact your own State Attorney's Office, the DOJ, or a lawyer who specializes in ADA law._


----------

