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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
