b"pawLAWThink Progress.Ignorance of the law excuses no man. Not that allThink. Progress. men know the law, but because tis an excuse every manwill plead, and no man can tellhow to refute him.English jurist John SeldonModifying Floridaa Dangerous Dog Law. (1584-1654).In June 2015,Padi, a black Lab mix, bit a four-year-oldchild.Despitethecircumstancessurroundingtheinci-dent,ManateeCountyAnimalServicessaidtheywererequired by state law to euthanize Padi, no exceptions.ManateeCountycitizensquestionedwhetherornotManatee County officials were correctly interpreting thelaw on how aggressive animals were handled.Dr. Gartenberg,State Representative Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, filed of Bradentonslegislation in August to change the state law, which cur- The Pet Clinic,and his dog, Padi.rently says any dog causing severe injury to a person,which includes injuries resulting in stitches, reconstructivesurgery or death has to be euthanized; no exceptions.Steubes bill, which has been filed for the 2016 session,allows for exceptions. We asked Florida attorneyDionne Blaessing to inter-pret the wording of the proposed bill, as compared to theoriginally-written Dangerous Dog statute.T herevisionofsectionsFl.St.767.12,767.135and and heard in circuit court. been added to clarify that if a dog767.136essentiallyrepresentareorganizationofthe Fl. St. 767.12 (5) outlines the responsibilities of the ownerconcepts and a rewording of the language of the origi- who elects to keep a dog deemed dangerous, once the hearingnal Dangerous Dog Statute that has been in effect for and appeal process has ended. This section remains the same indecades. The new version clarifies the role of Animal concept but is better organized and easier to understand.Control, spells out the different options under the law Fl. St. 767.12 (6) has andelucidatestheavailabilityofconstitutionalprotections determined to be dangerous in the investigation, hearing andimbedded in the process of hearings and appeals. There are some appeal, caused severe injury to a human being, Animal Controlactual changes to the law which will be expounded upon here. may impose a penalty of humane euthanization. That proposedFl. St. 767.12 grants county Animal Control services the penalty must be clearly stated in the notice to the owner. Bothauthority to investigate reports and/or incidents involving any the classification as dangerous dog and the penalty prescribeddog that may be deemed dangerous. This section now clarifies may be reviewed in the hearing, which will review all the evi-that Animal Control has sole discretion in determining whether dence of the investigation and any defense. That may includethey, or the dog owner, will confine the dog during the investi- revisitingtestimonyofallwitnesses,affidavitsandmedicalgation; during a hearing if requested by the owner; and through records used in determining the dangerous dog classification andthe appeal process if elected by the losing party. It now makes the opted penalty.clear that during a hearing and an appeal, the dog cannot be Fl. St. 767.12 (7) exempts from this section, hunting dogs,destroyed, but must be impounded at the owner's expense. show dogs and herding dogs when they are involved in legalFl. St. 767.12 improves the explanation of possible defens- activities,suchasshows,trials,hunts,herding,etal,whilees available for the dog. It expands requirements of the formal engagedintheactivity.However,ahuntingdogpreviouslynotice to owner, to include not only the final determination of classified as dangerous cannot hunt. Any dog exempted underthe investigation, but also the penalty sought by Animal Control. (7), when not engaged in their sport or activity, are subject toIt defines the timetable for owners requesting an initial hearing Fl. St. 767.12 and all local laws.and requesting an appeal of the outcome of the hearing. The Fl. St. 767.12 (8) explains the fine for violation of the pro-appeal is no longer to be heard in county court but must be filed visions of Fl. St. 767.12.78THE NEW BARKER www.TheNewBarker.com"