After her kids had left for school on Feb. 22, 2022, Gyöngyi Maas was out running in her Auburn neighborhood when two dogs attacked and nearly killed her.
Maas suffered broken bones along with nerve, muscle, ligament and tendon damage in her arms from the attack. Medics rushed her to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, where staff saved her life.
Auburn’s animal control officer can declare dogs or a dog like that — not a breed of dog — as “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” if the canine has severly injured a person or domesticated animal.
Possessing a dog like that would require its owner to increase insurance coverage and provide some sort of restraint for the dog — for example, fencing, a muzzle, or leashing — and the owner may appeal the designation to the city’s hearing examiner.
But who has the burden of proof in these appeals? The city or the owner? Auburn’s code does not say.
The upshot of the ambiguity is that by default, the burden of proof may fall on the dog’s owner. But according to the state constitution, it’s on the city, or county, not the owner, to prove its case.
Clarifying this shortcoming was front and center at the study session of the Auburn City Council on Jan. 13, when senior staff attorney Taryn Jones presented an ordinance proposing to settle the question. It spells it out as follows:
“For appeals of a potentially dangerous dog and/or dangerous dog determination, the city shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the animal at issue meets the city code’s definition of a potentially dangerous dog or dangerous dog.“
Jones said the ordinance, which she said would be folded into the city code’s hearing examiner chapter, would simply codify what is already city practice.
“We’ve been operating under that burden of proof,” Jones said. “It is not that residents haven’t had it. We’ve just been stipulating to taking on the burden, and this would be put into our code.”
City officials say this revision is necessary not only to accurately identify and prescribe the burden of proof in an appeal of a dangerous dog determination, but also to protect dog owners’ rights to due process. This would bring the city in line with the findings of the 2006 court case Mansour v. King County, when the county’s failure to follow due process was the difference between life and death for one dog.
In the Mansour case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision that had declared Kirkland resident Peter Mansour’s dog, Maxine, vicious after she had attacked and wounded a neighbor’s cat so severely, the cat had to be euthanized. The dog was ordered to be removed from the county or be put down.
According to the decision to reverse:
“In order for Mansour, or any other pet owner, to effectively present his case and rebut the evidence against him, due process requires that he be able to subpoena witnesses and records. Because the (King County Appeals) Board refused to let him do so, he was prejudiced in his defense against the Animal Control order. Mansour also received insufficient notice because the removal order identified the wrong removal authority and did not inform him what Animal Control must prove at the board hearing.”
Jones said that while dog owners have appealed dangerous dog designations in Auburn, such appeals are not common here, adding that “there have have only been two in the last five or so years. But there have been notable dog attacks.”
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
