Vicious Dog Cases Shift to Animal Control

What makes a dog vicious?

In Los Angeles County, that determination will now be in the hands of animal control officers, after the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance Tuesday that eliminates court hearings by a judge.

The decision gives animal control authority to preside over administrative hearings and declare a dog vicious, a judgment that in some cases could require the animal be euthanized.

A vicious dog is defined by the county as one that is trained to fight or, unprovoked, aggressively injures a person.

The new ordinance allows officers to consider attacks outside of their jurisdiction when judging a dog, and expands the definition of severe injury to include bites, cuts or fractures, and a heart attack suffered as a result of a dog's aggression.

The change to Title 10, which was proposed by the Department of Animal Care and Control (DACC) last Tuesday, will go into effect August 31.

Opponents of the change claim animal control has a vested interest in the outcomes of administrative hearings, arguing fines that were once levied by a judge will now be mandated by an animal control officer.

"It was really devastating today," said Eric Preven, Studio City resident and ordinance opponent.

His family has had a tumultuous history with animal control since the department impounded his mother's two Labradors, keeping the dogs kenneled for six months.

Preven said this violated the ordinance's claim to provide a "prompt hearing."

"They were holding them indefinitely with no evidence," he said.

Despite this relationship, Preven said he harbors no ill will against the department. However, he does object to them replacing a third-party judge.

The new arrangement will save the county money, according to Tony Bell, a spokesman for Supervisor Michael Antonovich. The county has responded to concerned residents with a letter outlining the advantages of putting animal control in charge of the process.

Under the current system "it's expensive for the (dog) owners and the tax payers," Bell said. Rulings by an animal control official can be appealed to a judge if the owner choses, but that should not discourage the change, he said

"You always run the risk of the judgment being not pleasing to one part or the other," he said.

Opponents fear animal control's prominent new role could muddy the waters between objective judgment and department loyalty, a claim that Bell said is not legitimate.

Animal control "is enforcing the law against animals, not their own department," he said. "I'm not sure if that money (from fines) goes back into the department."

The Department of Animal Care and Control was unavailable for comment at the time of publication.