I found this
http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottwe...alifornia.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.