Winston needs our help!!

[Taz_Zoee]

My friend who had the dogs that got out and got stabbed has asked me to help her. (see here (http://petoftheday.com/talk/showthread.php?173368-Molly-much-too-young&p=2423837#top))
She needs to know how to start on the legal process on fighting the Potentially Dangerous Dog designation.
She lives in Pleasant Hill, California if that matters. I have no clue where to look to help her.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

[Freedom]

Start by finding the law which applies. Is it a city ordinance? Or a state law? Get the link and read it through.

It will be hard to challenge - unprovoked attack, at least, I think that is how you explained it.

[Varga]

I found this
http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/california.html

"31602. 'Potentially dangerous dog' means any of the following:

(a) Any dog which, when unprovoked, ontwo separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.

(b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than as defined in Section 31604.

Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog."

There was no person harmed, right? So the only thing that could deem Winston potentially dangerous is that he got into a fight with another dog. But it clearly says that it has to happen twice.
It also says further on that the owner will be notified at the hearing and can be present at the hearing to defend the dog's case. I'd reckon that pointing out that it clearly says that a dog has to have made such an offense twice is very important to point out.
Other than that I don't really know what to say. I guess getting in touch with a lawyer, to have a talk about how to best present evidence that the dog is not vicious would be very helpful.

[Taz_Zoee]

Start by finding the law which applies. Is it a city ordinance? Or a state law? Get the link and read it through.

It will be hard to challenge - unprovoked attack, at least, I think that is how you explained it.

I have no idea how the incident went down. And honestly neither does the owner of the dogs. She can only go by what the people who were there say. She did not witness the incident (at least I don't think she did). But her dogs did get out of their yard. So they were unleashed and unattended. That could be against her as well. :(


I found this
http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/california.html

"31602. 'Potentially dangerous dog' means any of the following:

(a) Any dog which, when unprovoked, ontwo separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.

(b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than as defined in Section 31604.

Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog."

There was no person harmed, right? So the only thing that could deem Winston potentially dangerous is that he got into a fight with another dog. But it clearly says that it has to happen twice.
It also says further on that the owner will be notified at the hearing and can be present at the hearing to defend the dog's case. I'd reckon that pointing out that it clearly says that a dog has to have made such an offense twice is very important to point out.
Other than that I don't really know what to say. I guess getting in touch with a lawyer, to have a talk about how to best present evidence that the dog is not vicious would be very helpful.

Thank you!! This is good info. As far as I know this is the first incident he's had. Again, we have no idea how unprovoked it was. I do not know all the details. I'll have to talk to my friend here soon and find out. But I will pass this along to her.