VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:32:00 03/24/02 Sun
Author: Maureen and Sandy
Subject: Washington State Dog Law

CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6635





57th Legislature
2002 Regular Session


Passed by the Senate March 11, 2002
YEAS 42 NAYS 0




President of the Senate

Passed by the House March 6, 2002
YEAS 84 NAYS 9 CERTIFICATE

I, Tony M. Cook, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby
certify that the attached is SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6635 as passed by the Senate
and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth.



Speaker of the
House of Representatives
Secretary






Approved FILED


Governor of the State of Washington Secretary of State
State of Washington
_______________________________________________

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6635
_______________________________________________

AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE

Passed Legislature - 2002 Regular Session

State of Washington 57th Legislature 2002 Regular Session

By Senate Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Senators
Kastama, Kline and Rasmussen)

READ FIRST TIME 02/08/2002.
AN ACT Relating to a notice and appeal process for animal control
authorities; amending RCW 16.08.070, 16.08.080, and 16.08.100; and
prescribing penalties.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 16.08.070 and 1987 c 94 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in
this section apply throughout RCW 16.08.070 through 16.08.100.
(1) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked:
(a) Inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal either on public or
private property, or (b) chases or approaches a person upon the
streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or
apparent attitude of attack, or any dog with a known propensity,
tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to
cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic
animals.
(2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that (({- according to the
records of the appropriate authority, -})) (a) (({- has inflicted -}))
{+ inflicts +} severe injury on a human being without provocation on
public or private property, (b) (({- has killed -})) {+ kills +} a
domestic animal without provocation while {+ the dog is +} off the
owner's property, or (c) has been previously found to be potentially
dangerous {+ because of injury inflicted on a human +}, the owner
having received notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites,
attacks, or endangers the safety of humans (({- or domestic animals -
})).
(3) "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in
broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or
cosmetic surgery.
(4) "Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog" means, while on the
owner's property, a dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or
in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent
the entry of young children and designed to prevent the animal from
escaping. Such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure
top, and shall also provide protection from the elements for the dog.
(5) "Animal control authority" means an entity acting alone or in
concert with other local governmental units for enforcement of the
animal control laws of the city, county, and state and the shelter and
welfare of animals.
(6) "Animal control officer" means any individual employed,
contracted with, or appointed by the animal control authority for the
purpose of aiding in the enforcement of this chapter or any other law
or ordinance relating to the licensure of animals, control of animals,
or seizure and impoundment of animals, and includes any state or local
law enforcement officer or other employee whose duties in whole or in
part include assignments that involve the seizure and impoundment of
any animal.
(7) "Owner" means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or
department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or
having control or custody of an animal.

Sec. 2. RCW 16.08.080 and 1989 c 26 s 3 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) {+ Any city or county that has a notification and appeal
procedure with regard to determining a dog within its jurisdiction to
be dangerous may continue to utilize or amend its procedure. A city or
county animal control authority that does not have a notification and
appeal procedure in place as of the effective date of this act, and
seeks to declare a dog within its jurisdiction, as defined in
subsection (7) of this section, to be dangerous must serve notice upon
the dog owner in person or by regular and certified mail, return
receipt requested.
(2) The notice must state: The statutory basis for the proposed
action; the reasons the authority considers the animal dangerous; a
statement that the dog is subject to registration and controls required
by this chapter, including a recitation of the controls in subsection
(6) of this section; and an explanation of the owner's rights and of
the proper procedure for appealing a decision finding the dog
dangerous.
(3) Prior to the authority issuing its final determination, the
authority shall notify the owner in writing that he or she is entitled
to an opportunity to meet with the authority, at which meeting the
owner may give, orally or in writing, any reasons or information as to
why the dog should not be declared dangerous. The notice shall state
the date, time, and location of the meeting, which must occur prior to
expiration of fifteen calendar days following delivery of the notice.
The owner may propose an alternative meeting date and time, but such
meeting must occur within the fifteen-day time period set forth in this
section. After such meeting, the authority must issue its final
determination, in the form of a written order, within fifteen calendar
days. In the event the authority declares a dog to be dangerous, the
order shall include a recital of the authority for the action, a brief
concise statement of the facts that support the determination, and the
signature of the person who made the determination. The order shall be
sent by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, or
delivered in person to the owner at the owner's last address known to
the authority.
(4) If the local jurisdiction has provided for an administrative
appeal of the final determination, the owner must follow the appeal
procedure set forth by that jurisdiction. If the local jurisdiction
has not provided for an administrative appeal, the owner may appeal a
municipal authority's final determination that the dog is dangerous to
the municipal court, and may appeal a county animal control authority's
or county sheriff's final determination that the dog is dangerous to
the district court. The owner must make such appeal within twenty days
of receiving the final determination. While the appeal is pending, the
authority may order that the dog be confined or controlled in
compliance with RCW 16.08.090. If the dog is determined to be
dangerous, the owner must pay all costs of confinement and control.
(5) +} It is unlawful for an owner to have a dangerous dog in the
state without a certificate of registration issued under this section.
This section and RCW 16.08.090 and 16.08.100 shall not apply to police
dogs as defined in RCW 4.24.410.
(({- (2) -})) {+ (6) Unless a city or county has a more restrictive
code requirement, t +}he animal control authority of the city or county
in which an owner has a dangerous dog shall issue a certificate of
registration to the owner of such animal if the owner presents to the
animal control unit sufficient evidence of:
(a) A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog and the posting
of the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that there is a
dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall
conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs
children of the presence of a dangerous dog;
(b) A surety bond issued by a surety insurer qualified under
chapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to the animal control authority
in the sum of at least {+ two hundred +} fifty thousand dollars,
payable to any person injured by the (({- vicious -})) {+ dangerous +}
dog; or
(c) A policy of liability insurance, such as homeowner's insurance,
issued by an insurer qualified under Title 48 RCW in the amount of at
least {+ two hundred +} fifty thousand dollars, insuring the owner for
any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog.
(({- (3) -})) {+ (7) +}(a){+ (i) +} If an owner has the dangerous
dog in an incorporated area that is serviced by both a city and a
county animal control authority, the owner shall obtain a certificate
of registration from the city authority;
(({- (b) -})) {+ (ii) +} If an owner has the dangerous dog in an
incorporated or unincorporated area served only by a county animal
control authority, the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration
from the county authority;
(({- (c) -})) {+ (iii) +} If an owner has the dangerous dog in an
incorporated or unincorporated area that is not served by an animal
control authority, the owner shall obtain a certificate of registration
from the office of the local sheriff.
(({- (4) -})) {+ (b) This subsection does not apply if a city or
county does not allow dangerous dogs within its jurisdiction.
(8) +} Cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to
regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.
{+ (9) Nothing in this section limits a local authority in placing
additional restrictions upon owners of dangerous dogs. This section
does not require a local authority to allow a dangerous dog within its
jurisdiction. +}

Sec. 3. RCW 16.08.100 and 1987 c 94 s 4 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Any dangerous dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal
control authority if the: (a) Dog is not validly registered under RCW
16.08.080; (b) owner does not secure the liability insurance coverage
required under RCW 16.08.080; (c) dog is not maintained in the proper
enclosure; {+ or +} (d) dog is outside of the dwelling of the owner, or
outside of the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of the
responsible person. {+ The owner must pay the costs of confinement and
control. The animal control authority must serve notice upon the dog
owner in person or by regular and certified mail, return receipt
requested, specifying the reason for the confiscation of the dangerous
dog, that the owner is responsible for payment of the costs of
confinement and control, and that the dog will be destroyed in an
expeditious and humane manner if the deficiencies for which the dog was
confiscated are not corrected within twenty days. The animal control
authority shall destroy the confiscated dangerous dog in an expeditious
and humane manner if any deficiencies required by this subsection are
not corrected within twenty days of notification. +} In addition, the
owner shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable in accordance
with RCW 9A.20.021.
(2) If a dangerous dog of an owner with a prior conviction under
this chapter attacks or bites a person or another domestic animal, the
dog's owner is guilty of a class C felony, punishable in accordance
with RCW 9A.20.021. {+ It is an affirmative defense that the defendant
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was in
compliance with the requirements for ownership of a dangerous dog
pursuant to this chapter and the person or domestic animal attacked or
bitten by the defendant's dog trespassed on the defendant's real or
personal property or provoked the defendant's dog without justification
or excuse. +} In addition, the dangerous dog shall be immediately
confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine for
the proper length of time, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious
and humane manner.
(3) The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes
severe injury or death of any human, whether {+ or not +} the dog has
previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall{+ ,
upon conviction, +} be guilty of a class C felony punishable in
accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. {+ It is an affirmative defense that
the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
human severely injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a)
Trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property which was
enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and
designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly
visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and
to beware of dog; or (b) provoked the defendant's dog without
justification or excuse on the defendant's real or personal property
which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young
children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with
clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to
trespass and to beware of dog. In such a prosecution, the state has
the burden of showing that the owner of the dog either knew or should
have known that the dog was potentially dangerous as defined in this
chapter. The state may not meet its burden of proof that the owner
should have known the dog was potentially dangerous solely by showing
the dog to be a particular breed or breeds. +} In addition, the dog
shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, (({-
placed in quarantine for the proper length of time -})) {+ quarantined
+}, and (({- thereafter -})) {+ upon conviction of the owner +}
destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner.
(4) Any person entering a dog in a dog fight is guilty of a class
C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021.

--- END ---

Want to comment to Governor Locke?
Want to know how your Senator and Representative voted on this bill???
3/14/02 2:37 a.m. WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE Roll Calls on SB 6635 ______________________________________________________________________________ Chamber: SENATE 2002 Regular Session Bill No.: SSB 6635
Description: 3RD READING & FINAL PASSAGE Item No.: 10 Transcript No.: 32

Date: 02-14-2002

Yeas: 44 Nays: 02 Absent: 00 Excused: 03

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Rasmussen, Regala, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley, Zarelli Voting nay: Senators Costa, Prentice Excused: Senators Kline, Roach, Swecker

Chamber: HOUSE 2002 Regular Session Bill No.: SSB 6635

Description: FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Item No.: 42 Transcript No.: 52 Date: 03-06-2002

Yeas: 84 Nays: 09 Absent: 00 Excused: 05

Voting yea: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Armstrong, Ballasiotes, Barlean, Benson, Berkey, Boldt, Buck, Bush, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clements, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Cox, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Doumit, Dunn, Dunshee, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Esser, Fisher, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hunt, Hurst, Jackley, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McDermott, McIntire, Mielke, Mitchell, Morell, Morris, Murray, Nixon, O'Brien, Ogden, Orcutt, Pearson, Quall, Reardon, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schmidt, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Simpson, Skinner, Sommers, Sullivan, Talcott, Tokuda, Upthegrove, Van Luven, Veloria, Wood, Woods, and Mr. Speaker

Voting nay: Representatives Anderson, Ballard, Crouse, Holmquist, Lisk, Mulliken, Pflug, Schindler, Sump Excused: Representatives Casada, Edwards, Lysen, McMorris, Miloscia

Chamber: SENATE 2002 Regular Session Bill No.: SSB 6635

Description: FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Item No.: 55 Transcript No.: 57 Date: 03-11-2002

Yeas: 42 Nays: 00 Absent: 01 Excused: 06

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Prentice, Rasmussen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley

Absent: Senator Brown Excused: Senators Fairley, Parlette, Poulsen, Regala, Snyder, Zarelli

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.