STATE
|
LANGUAGE
|
COMMENT
|
HOME RULE ISSUES
|
ARIZONA
|
|
|
|
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-499.04 and Section 11-1005
|
Section 9-499.04, Arizona Revised Statutes, C. A city or town may regulate the control of dogs if the regulation is not specific to any breed. 11-1005. Powers and duties of board of supervisors A. Each county board of supervisors may: 3. Contract with any city or town to enforce the provisions of any ordinance enacted by such city or town for the control of dogs if the provisions are not specific to any breed. NOTE existing statutory limitations on county authority to enact dog control ordinances for unincorporated areas: 4. For the unincorporated areas of the county, by ordinance, regulate, estrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, except dogs used for control of livestock or while being used or trained for hunting. 5. For the unincorporated areas of the county, by ordinance, regulate, restrain and prohibit the excessive and unrestrained barking of dogs.
|
Enacted 2016, SB 1248 Approved by Governor Doug Ducey, May 19, 2016
Chaptered Version
Effective August 6, 2016
Note: This bill originally passed the Senate as a water bill; House gut/amend to animal topics including preemption of any local law, rule, regulation or ordinance prohibiting the sale of dogs or cats by a pet store or dealer based on the source of the animal if obtained in compliance with this Act and 9 member review committee to report by 12/31/2016.
|
Arizona local government information
Arizona Local Government Fact Sheet
Dillon's Rule except charter cities that have the equivalent of home rule.
NOTE: SB 1248 described the pet store preemption as a "matter of statewide concern" - typically the words meaning state law is intended to prevail over home rule, but the bill DID NOT use this language for the breed specific prohibitions.
|
CALIFORNIA
|
|
|
|
CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE Section 31683
[Dangerous Dog Law Sections 31601-31683]
|
Effective January, 2006, as amended:
31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. Except as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, no program regulating any dog shall be specific as to breed.”
[Original provision: 31683. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.]
|
In 2005, California SB 861 modified the comprehensive breed specific preemption originally enacted in 1989 by SB 428. The remainder of the state statute on dangerous and vicious dogs remains unchanged but applies only to individual dogs based on specific criteria. Effective Date 1/1/1990
Note: Senator Art Torres Papers are at Stanford University. Department of Special Collections and University Archives speccollref@stanford.edu Box 18, Folder 3 Senate Bill 428, Vicious Dogs, 1989
|
N/A
|
COLORADO
|
|
|
|
18-9-204.5. Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog.
|
(5) (a) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a municipality from adopting any rule or law for the control of dangerous dogs; except that any such rule or law shall not regulate dangerous dogs in a manner that is specific to breed.
|
Enacted 2004. Challenged successfully by City and County of Denver, a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado.
|
YES, UPHELD BY COURT Article XX, Section 6, Colorado Constitution
|
CONNECTICUT
|
|
|
|
House Bill No. 6311 Public Act No. 13-103
|
Subparagraph (D) of subdivision (7) of subsection (c) of section 7-148 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: (D) (i) Regulate and prohibit the going at large of dogs and other animals in the streets and public places of the municipality and prevent cruelty to animals and all inhuman sports, except that no municipality shall adopt breed-specific dog ordinances;
|
Signed by Governor, June 3, 2013, effective October 1, 2013
|
|
DELAWARE
|
|
|
|
House Bill 13, 2017
|
Delaware Code, Title 11, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, add: § 1327 (c) No dog shall be considered dangerous or potentially dangerous solely because of the dog’s breed or perceived breed. Delaware Code, Title 22, Municipalities, Chapter 1, add: § 116. Dogs. The municipal governments shall enact no law, ordinance, or regulation relating to dogs, or restrictions on dogs, based on a dog’s breed or perceived breed.
|
Signed by Governor, June 2, 2017 Effective June 2, 2017
|
No Home Rule
Dillon's Rule
|
FLORIDA
|
|
|
|
Florida Statutes CHAPTER 767 DAMAGE BY DOGS
Laws 1990, c. 90-180, § 6
|
767.14 Additional local restrictions authorized.--Nothing in this act shall limit any local government from placing further restrictions or additional requirements on owners of dangerous dogs or developing procedures and criteria for the implementation of this act, provided that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional regulations or requirements. This section shall not apply to any local ordinance adopted prior to October 1, 1990.
History.--s. 5, ch. 90-180.
|
Langauge is limited to "owners" and implementation of dangerous dog law provisions.
Pre-10/1/90 ordinances are not affected, including those litigated.
2008 Pre-filed Florida bill, H 101 would repeal preemption
|
|
ILLINOIS
|
|
|
|
(510 ILCS 5/15) (from Ch. 8, par. 365)
(510 ILCS 5/24) (from Ch. 8, par. 374)
|
Original, limited to vicious determinations: Sec. 15. (a) ... No dog shall be deemed "vicious" if it is a professionally trained dog for law enforcement or guard duties. Vicious dogs shall not be classified in a manner that is specific as to breed. ..
Comprehensive,, enacted 2003 by H184: Sec. 24. Nothing in this Act shall be held to limit in any manner the power of any municipality or other political subdivision to prohibit animals from running at large, nor shall anything in this Act be construed to, in any manner, limit the power of any municipality or other political subdivision to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals in such municipality or other political subdivision provided that no regulation or ordinance is specific to breed. (Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03.)
|
|
YES
Constitution of the State of Illinois ARTICLE VII LOCAL GOVERNMENT
|
MAINE
|
|
|
|
Maine Legislature Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS Part 9: ANIMAL WELFARE Chapter 725: MUNICIPAL DUTIES
Public Laws, Second Regular Session, 1991 See page 12
|
§3950. Local regulations
Each municipality is empowered to adopt or retain more stringent ordinances, laws or regulations dealing with the subject matter of this chapter, except that municipalities may not adopt breed-specific ordinances, laws or regulations. Any less restrictive municipal ordinances, laws or regulations are invalid and of no force and effect. [1991, c. 779, §40 (amd).]
1. Certain agricultural working dogs exempt from barking dog ordinances. A municipal ordinance, law or regulation that prohibits or limits barking dogs does not apply to dogs engaged in herding livestock or to agricultural guard dogs engaged in protecting livestock or warning the owners of danger to the livestock. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "livestock" has the same meaning as in section 3907, subsection 18-A.[2005, c. 138, §1 (new).]
|
This provision is not limited to dangerous/vicious laws and appears to extend beyond ordinances.
This agricultural barking preemption is general and an example of a state preemption of a subject other than related to breeds.
|
|
MASSACHUSETTS
|
|
|
|
Details pending
|
8/2/12 Governor signed S. 2192 containing breed specific language.
|
Complete analysis of details is pending. This is the 13th preemption state.
|
|
MINNESOTA
|
|
|
|
Minnesota Statutes 347.51 Dangerous dogs; registration, amendment to 1988 statute in 1989, effective April 18, 1989
|
Subd. 8. Local ordinances. A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void.
|
Language is limited to dangerous dog subject and ordinances.
|
NO, EXPRESSLY STATED IN STATUTE
|
NEW JERSEY
|
|
|
|
N.J.S.A. 4:19-36
L.1989, c. 307, § 21 Effective Jan. 12, 1990
|
The provisions of this act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog, or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county, or county or local board of health.
|
|
|
NEVADA
|
|
|
|
2013 - AB 110 Effective 10/1/2013 Enrolled Bill
|
Approved by Governor 5/24/13 NRS 202.500 6. A local authority shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that deems a dog dangerous or vicious based solely on the breed of the dog. 8. As used in this section, “local authority” means the governing board of a county, city or other political subdivision having authority to enact laws or ordinances or promulgate regulations relating to dogs.
|
|
|
NEW YORK
|
|
|
|
New York State Consolidated Laws Agriculture & Markets ARTICLE 7- LICENSING, IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF DOGS S 107. Application.
L.1997, c. 530, § 1 Effective Sept. 1, 1998
|
5. Nothing contained in this article shall prevent a municipality from adopting its own program for the control of dangerous dogs; provided, however, that no such program shall be less stringent than this article, and no such program shall regulate such dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section, this subdivision and section one hundred twenty-one of this article shall apply to all municipalities including cities of two million or more.
|
Refers to "program" which is broader than ordinance, law or regulation.
|
|
OKLAHOMA
|
|
|
|
OKLAHOMA STATUTES TITLE 4. ANIMALS §4-46. Muzzle and restraint of certain dogs required - Local regulation of dangerous dogs - Dogs not to be declared dangerous.
Laws 1991, c. 199, § 3, effective. Feb. 1, 1992
|
B. Potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs may be regulated through local, municipal and county authorities, provided the regulations are not breed specific. Nothing in this act shall prohibit such local governments from enforcing penalties for violation of such local laws.
|
|
Stuckey v Midwest City, Court of Appeals upheld dog owner's 2007 challenge to home rule charter city's adoption of BSL ord; 2011 Supreme Court of OK declined to hear city's appeal.
|
PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
|
|
PURDON'S PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES ANNOTATED. TITLE 3. AGRICULTURE. CHAPTER 8. DOGS. DOG LAW. ARTICLE V-A. DANGEROUS DOGS PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-507-A(c) Enacted by 1990 Act 46 (HB 820)
|
(c) Local ordinances.--Those provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. A local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog.
Following refers to requirements for keeping a dog determined to be dangerous under Section 502-A of the same Act. (d) Insurance coverage discrimination.-- No liability policy or surety bond issued pursuant to this act or any other act may prohibit coverage from any specific breed of dog.
|
DOG LAW - AMEND CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DOG, Act of May 31, 1990, P.L. 213, No. 46, Session of 1990. Effective 60 days after May 31, 1990.
|
|
RHODE ISLAND
|
|
|
|
H 5671 Chapter 14, General Laws: 4-13-43. Prohibition of breed specific regulation; 4-13.1-16. Prohibition of breed specific regulation.
|
No city or town may enact any rule, regulation or ordinance specific to any breed of dog or cat in the exercise of its power to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals as authorized by this chapter.
|
Governor's Press Release July 17, 2013
Note: This is the first preemption statute ever to include cats.
|
|
SOUTH DAKOTA
|
|
|
|
South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 40-34-16, new section
|
No local government, as defined in § 6-1-12, may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance, policy, resolution, or other enactment that is specific as to the breed or perceived breed of a dog. This section does not impair the right of any local government unit to enact, maintain, or enforce any form of regulation that applies to all dogs.
|
SB 75 signed by Governor, March 14, 2014
Effective July, 2014
|
South Dakota does have Home Rule Constitutional provisions and some Municipalities governed by Home Rule Charters. The criteria is whether a subject is strictly a municipal concern. Effect is unknown.
|
TEXAS
|
|
|
|
Texas Health & Safety Code CHAPTER 822. REGULATION OF ANIMALS SUBCHAPTER A. DOGS THAT ARE A DANGER TO PERSONS
|
§ 822.047. Local Regulation of Dangerous Dogs A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions: (1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and (2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.
|
Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 916, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.
|
Article II, Section 5 Texas Constitution: home rule city can not enact an ordinance that "contains any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State."
|
UTAH
|
|
|
|
Amended Title 10, Chapter 8, Powers and Duties of Municipalities, and Title 18, Dogs.
|
18-2-1. Regulation of dogs by a municipality. (1) A municipality may not adopt or enforce a breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs. (2) Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs is void.
|
Added by HB 97, 2014, effective January 2, 2015
|
|
VIRGINIA
|
|
|
|
§ 3.1-796.93:1. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties.
§ 3.2-6540.1 Vicious dogs; penalties.
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2017 SESSION, CHAPTER 396, An Act to amend and reenact § 3.2-6540 of the Code of Virginia, relating to dangerous dogs, enacted by 2017 H 2381, approved by the Governor, March 13, 2017.
Revised entry, 3/22/17
|
2017 H 2381 does not change the preemption provision but re-letters it as a separate provision of § 3.2-6540.1.A: D. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited.
§ 3.2-6540.1. Vicious dogs; penalties. C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a vicious dog if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a vicious dog. No animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a vicious dog.
E. The governing body of any locality may enact an ordinance parallel to this statute regulating vicious dogs. No locality may impose a felony penalty for violation of such ordinances.
C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.
|
October 2006 Attorney General Opinion 06-078 The Honorable Kenneth Cooper Alexander Member, House of Delegates Publicly funded animal shelters or “pounds” may not euthanize dogs based solely upon breed. NEW 2/23/07
|
Dillon's Rule Virginia specific information.
|
WASHINGTON
|
|
|
|
Chapter 199, 2019 Laws. Enacted HB 1026 Effective date 1/1/2020. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 16.08, Dogs new section ___________
|
(1) A city or county may not prohibit the possession of a dog based upon its breed, impose requirements specific to possession of a dog based upon its breed, or declare a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous based on its breed unless all of the following conditions are met: (a) The city or county has established and maintains a reasonable process for exempting any dog from breed-based regulations or a breed ban if the dog passes the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test as determined by the city or county; (b) Dogs that pass the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are exempt from breed-based regulations for a period of at least two years; (c) Dogs that pass the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are given the opportunity to retest to maintain their exemption from breed-based regulations; and (d) Dogs that fail the American kennel club canine good citizen test or a reasonably equivalent canine behavioral test are given the opportunity to retest within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the city or county.
|
Domestic dogs only
|
|
|
|
|
|