 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pittman v. City of St. Paul9/23/2003
After pro se relator Channa Pittman's dog allegedly chased and bit a nine-year-old boy, respondent City of Saint Paul, Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, declared the dog potentially dangerous and placed restrictions on it. Relator appealed the decision and a hearing was held before a hearing officer, who upheld the decision and found the dog potentially dangerous.
Relator challenges the decision by writ of certiorari, arguing that (1) the decision is unreasonable and oppressive because the evidence fails to show that her dog is dangerous; and (2) the decision is unsupported by the evidence because the city ordinance, St. Paul, Minn. Legislative Code § 200.11(a)(1), (2) (2002), applies to unprovoked bites, and there is evidence that the child provoked the dog. Because the decision that the dog is potentially dangerous is reasonably supported by evidence in the record, we affirm.
DECISION
On a writ of certiorari, our review is limited to an inspection of the record before the agency and necessarily confined to questions affecting the jurisdiction of the [agency], the regularity of its proceedings, and, as to merits of the controversy, whether the order or determination in a particular case was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.
Senior v. City of Edina, 547 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Minn. App. 1996) (quotations omitted); see also Hannan v. City of Minneapolis, 623 N.W.2d 281, 284 (Minn. App. 2001) (applying this standard of review to certiorari appeal by dog owner challenging city's order for destruction of dog under dangerous dog ordinance). This court cannot retry facts or make credibility determinations. Senior, 547 N.W.2d at 416. We must uphold the agency's decision if it has "furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken." Id. (quotation omitted).
Relator's dog was declared potentially dangerous under the following subsections of the city code:
Potentially dangerous animals. A potentially dangerous animal is an animal which has:
(1) When unprovoked, bitten a human or domestic animal on public or private property; or
(2) When unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack[.]
St. Paul, Minn., Legislative Code § 200.11(a) (2002). The hearing officer ordered that the dog be fitted with a microchip and that certain restrictions be placed on the dog, including that he be "muzzled and restrained by a chain or leash not more than 6 (six) feet long, and under the control of a person eighteen years of age or older at all times when it is outdoors and not inside a proper enclosure." See Legislative Code § 200.11(b) (allowing these restrictions).
Relator argues that the hearing officer's decision is unreasonable and oppressive because the testimony indicated that the neighborhood children often played with her dog and did not view him as a danger. She further notes that even the nine-year-old boy's mother testified that she did not think the dog was dangerous or that he was chasing her son. Relator complains about the restrictions placed on her dog, insisting that to "microchip and effectively disallow all outdoor contact" between the dog and her six children is oppressive and unreasonable.
At the hearing, relator testified that her dog does not bite. Relator admitted, however, that she did not observe the incident at issue here because she was inside getting ready for bed. Relator's daughter, who was an eyewitness, t
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|