Amending various Sections of Chapter 5 Commonly know as Animals and Fowl

Home Browse Search

A + e Common Council Memo August 24, 1987 Page 3 In subparagraph (d) addressing pens or structures (found at page 8) , the paragraph has been modified so that the burden is placed on the owner of the American Pit Bull Terrier or any other potentially dangerous dog to provide a pen or structure on the outside or keeping the dog restrained on the inside , with said pen or structure to be designed and maintained in such a manner to prevent the dog from escaping, attacking, biting, or otherwise endangering the safety of persons or domestic animals. We have further stated that all pens or structures must comply with all City zoning and building requirements. Please note that subparagraph (i) addressing "serious injury or death" has been modified to specifically define "serious injury" and to further indicate that it shall not mean a "nip" from a dog which has previously been defined within the ordinance. Please note that in subparagraph (4) on page 9 , we have specifically excluded the owner of a dog which causes serious injury to a person who is found guilty of a criminal trespass, and the owner would not be subject to the penalty provisions set forth in the ordinance. It should also be noted that we have proposed that the effective date of this ordinance, if passed by the Common Council , be October 1 , 1987 to ensure that proper notice be provided to all citizens of our City. 2) Legal Background Under the home rule doctrines of the Indiana law, cities are granted all powers required for the effective operation of government as to local affairs ( See I . C . , 36 - 1 - 3 - 2 ) . Additionally, I.C., 36-8-2-5 and I.C., 36-8-2-6 specifically authorize cities to capture and destroy animals, if necessary; to establish , maintain and operate animal shelters ; and give authority to restrict and regulate animals within the city. In addition to the clear statutory authority , cities have a long listing of judicial cases whereby the power of a city to protect the public health and safety of its citizens has been upheld. Municipalities have the power to establish reasonable regulations based upon their police powers. In an Indiana case, namely Walker v. Towle (1901) 156 Ind 639 59 NE 20, the Court held that cities may prohibit dogs from running at large through ordinances and allow such dogs to be impounded or even destroyed if not retained by their owners (see also Municipal Corporation Law, Section 6.135 , 1987).