56) Due Process - Louisville

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
THE LOUISVILLE KENNEL CLUB, INC., ET AL. PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-230-S
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS
ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

2. Section 91.101 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances is declared unconstitutional insofar as it threatens to deprive pet owners of their property rights without a finding of guilt. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and Metro’s motion for summary judgment (DN 27) is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing § 91.101 in the manner just described.



1 Ordinance No. 290, Series 2007, “An Ordinance Amending Chapter 91 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances (“Code”) Pertaining to Unaltered Dogs, the Waiver of Metro Animal Service
Fees Due to Financial Hardship, and the Quarantine of Animals (Amended by Substitution).” The Court will refer to this legislation as “the ordinance.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

THE LOUISVILLE KENNEL CLUB, INC., ET AL. PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-230-S
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

………edited out other sections and only included those that apply to this….

One provision allegedly requires forfeiture of certain pets without adequate “procedural” Due Process. A fourth set of provisions, it is argued, authorize illegal warrantless searches and seizures of pet owners’ homes and property


………edited out other sections and only included those that apply to this….


III. Procedural Due Process
Plaintiffs claim that § 91.101 of the ordinance threatens a citizen’s right to a fair hearing before being deprived of property. Before delving into the governing jurisprudence, we think it wise to determine how the ordinance operates.
As with other sections of the ordinance in question, § 91.101 seems to be the victim of hasty drafting. Entitled “Confiscation of Victimized Animal,” its purpose is to allow the authorities to take possession of an animal that has been the victim of any of several forms of inhumane treatment.
These include (inter alia) failure to provide necessities, abandonment, mutilation, and “exhibition fighting.” Section 91.101(A) provides that an animal found involved in a violation of any of these prohibitions may be confiscated by an animal control officer, evidently for its protection.
Once an animal has been confiscated, subsection (B) provides for a hearing before a judge. That judge is to determine whether probable cause existed for the confiscation. If so, the owner must post a $450 bond within 24 hours to cover the cost of 30 days’ boarding and veterinary care for the animal, which remains in the city’s possession. A new bond must be posted every 30 days, and failure to do so results in immediate forfeiture of the animal. The ordinance does not say what happens if no probable cause is found, but the implication of the bond and forfeiture provisions, coupled with general background notions of justice, must be that absent probable cause the animal is to be returned to its owner.

Section 91.101(B)(1) goes on to provide that upon a plea or finding of guilt, the animal’s owner becomes responsible for all costs created by the impoundment. (That is, any bond he has posted is not returned, and he must pay any outstanding amount due.) Further, the animal in question becomes property of the city. If the accused is found innocent, subsection (B)(2) provides that any posted bond is to be returned to the owner. The ordinance does not explicitly provide for return of a seized animal if its owner is found to be innocent. Again, however, context leads the Court to conclude that returning the animal on a finding of innocence must have been the Metro Council’s intent. There is, first, the obvious fact that this is the just result of such an adjudication. In addition, it makes little sense for the government to return the posted bond—leaving it on the hook for all the animal’s expenses up to the acquittal—and then to hold onto the animal at its own further expense.

Finally, the last sentence of subsection (B)(1) states: “Upon conviction, all animals not forfeited pursuant to subsection (B) herein above shall become the property of the Metro Government.” This implies that, prior to conviction, ownership of the animal does not change. After an acquittal, then, the original owner retains his rights, and the city has no further basis for holding the animal.

The construction offered above solves two problems with § 91.101, allowing for the return of a confiscated animal upon a finding of either no probable cause or innocence (if the bond has been duly paid). But a third problem lingers. It is undoubtedly the case that the ordinance mandates permanent forfeiture of a seized animal if the judge finds probable cause and the owner fails to timely post the appropriate bond. This provision is evidently meant to ensure that the owner of a confiscated dog has an interest in posting the bond: If he could refuse to do so and then wait for an adjudication of guilt, he might never have to post before getting the dog back (if he is found innocent), or he might lose his ownership of the dog (if he is found guilty) and thus any incentive to pay the past-due boarding and veterinary costs. The result is that a person whose dog has been confiscated, and against whom there is probable cause that he violated one of the humane treatment requirements, will lose his dog permanently unless he posts bond, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. This possibility presents a legitimate due process claim.


Claims under the “procedural” arm of the Due Process Clause are governed by the balancing framework set up by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Determining how much process is due in a given case involves consideration of three factors:
(1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”;
(2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”;and
(3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335.

As plaintiffs argue, pet owners clearly have a property interest in their animals. See Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Ky. 2006) (recognizing that dogs are personal property). This interest is not absolute and is subject to regulation by state and municipal governments. Id. Nonetheless, the government is not permitted to deprive an animal owner of his property without due process of law. The question is not whether process is due, but rather how much is required.
We therefore inquire into the second prong of the Mathews test. As the procedure stands, the risk of erroneous deprivation of this property interest is significant. It is perfectly possible for a judge to find probable cause that a person has committed an offense, but for that person later to befound innocent. Under the scheme set up in § 91.101, if such a person was unable to put up $450 immediately upon the probable cause finding, his pet is forfeit and he has no apparent recourse for its recovery, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. There is thus a high risk of erroneous deprivation, which some sort of additional hearing, appeal, or late-payment process could remedy. Moreover, the government has little interest in keeping ownership of pets belonging to innocent citizens. Presumably most of the animals kept under this ordinance have to be euthanized, lest the burden of boarding and caring for them grow too high. The government does not articulate any interest whatsoever in its brief—it does not even cite Mathews—and the Court is unwilling to fabricate one. Consequently we must hold that the portion of § 91.101 that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional.
It seems likely that § 91.101 is poorly drafted and does not properly represent the intent of its authors. However, this Court is not in the business of authoring or revising legislation. As a remedy for the constitutional failing just described, the Court will therefore enter an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance in the manner just described. Applications of § 91.101 that do not infringe the constitutional right to due process of law may continue.

55) WOW and YAY - YAY - YAY FINALLY

Another big animal seizure. This one in Houston.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/21164605/detail.html?dsq=18446644#comment-18446644


The way it works.
1. Somebody says the animals are in deplorable conditions, abused, neglected.
2. The SPCA (or whoever) confiscates ALL the animals
3. They charge the owner for the "care" of the animals (that would be whatever care they deem necessary - only in some instances they have neglected to continue the treatment the animal was already on - under the direction of a vet)
4. There is some time delay in getting to court.
5. There is a whole lot of time delay if the person pleads not guilty and goes to trial
6. In some places the judge can order the animals disposed of before a trial
7. Should a person win in a trial they might get some of their animals back, not likely all, and guaranteed any they do get back will be so damaged as to be unrecognizable.
8. The person would have to pay for the "care" of the animals before they could get them back. Apparently these people providing the "care" can charge whatever they like and run up ridiculous vet bills, as well. $213,000 in Houston, mostly for rodents.
Nobody can afford that, and yes, it does work the same for children.
It isn't enough that the government has to run how children are raised, now they have found a new victim. People who raise animals.


But this news came today.




WOW!

Well, guess that just may be the way it used to work.

WOW! This is the greatest thing since sliced bread!


--- On Sat, 10/3/09, goodthingimrich barbarajhaines@ wrote:

This past Friday, very late in the day, the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government.

The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as here in Louisville, which was always part of our strategy. Below is the notice from LKC President, Donna Herzig, which clarifies some of the decision:

"This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.

"He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution] , and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.

"The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions.

"With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance (a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain a warrant prior to seizure.

"Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't .

"Notwithstanding the story in the Courier Journal--I am not sure that they read the same opinion--we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis.

"While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a recent change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order is issued or the owner gives consent in writing.

"Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, we will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement. "

A big 'Thank you!' to every individual and every club that donated to our legal fund. This has been a great victory on the most substantive issues possible, and opens the door to citizens everywhere being able to sue for damages against similar ordinances.

--Barbara Haines


******

I must get a copy of that decision..and I will post it everywhere!

The AKC already posted it for me.

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/LKC_Metro_Govt_100509.pdf

hmmmmmm, copy and paste the link, I'll figure it out one of these days.

This means: ( I think.)
1. There must be probable cause to get a warrant to search for and seize your animals. (no change)
2. No up front bond to care for the animals seized.
3. No charge to take care of animals until a finding of guilty.
4. Anyone who has had animals so seized and charges for care assessed before a finding of guilt may.
…….A. Sue the organization that seized the animals
…….B. Sue the individuals that seized the animals individually.

There are a lot of potential lawsuits out there.

This is not the same as a decision handed down by the Supreme Court, but it does lend substantial credence to any lawsuit.

I hope people who have suffered through this go for it.

There is no statute of limitation on this issue.

54) MDA "policy"

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
GOVERNOR
DON KOIVISTO
DIRECTOR

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LANSING
July 30, 2008

After an internal review, MDA policy and interpretation of holding times for dogs and cats at animal shelters and requirements for rabies vaccinations in kennel situations are as follows:

Holding Times

Stray dogs and cats without identification noting the owner’s address or without some type of identification that leads to an owner’s address must be held for four days. Animals with identification noting the owner’s address or identification that leads to an owner’s address (e.g., microchip, tattoo, dog license), must be held for seven days from the date the required written notice is sent to the owner alerting the owner the animal is at the shelter.

“Day” should be interpreted to mean a 24-hour period which is not a State holiday or weekend (Saturday or Sunday), regardless of the days the shelter is actually open. In addition, “day” would not include the first day of acquisition. If an animal only wearing a collar was received by a shelter on a Saturday, the animal would need to be held for four days-the following Friday, assuming no holidays fell during that week, since neither weekends nor the first day of acquisition count. Owner surrendered animals, or animals which are ill or injured to the extent that holding the animals would result in undue suffering, are not subject to a holding time.

.

Rabies Vaccinations in Kennel Situations

Section 10 of The Dog Law (1919, Public Act 339, as amended) clearly states that “proof of vaccination against rabies shall not be required” meaning that dogs kept under a kennel license are not required under state law to be vaccinated against rabies. A local municipality can enact an ordinance or other mechanism requiring all dogs kept under a kennel license to be currently vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian. Note, however, that dogs kept under a kennel license pursuant to state law must remain in the kennel unless temporarily being used for hunting, breeding, trail, or show, unless temporarily out and on a leash.

MDA is asking that the above replace all past correspondences received from the department regarding holding times and rabies vaccinations for dogs kept under kennel licenses, and be strictly followed. For questions or concerns regarding holding times or rabies vaccines for dogs kept under kennel licenses, please contact the Michigan Department of Agriculture at
517-373-1077.

omg............MDA recognizes state law states "clearly"

No where does state law give MDA the authority to even so much as imply a local municipality has the authority to enact an ordinance that contravenes state law.

Now, who's ass are they trying to cover, since some municipalities have already enacted such an ordinance. Now, they want the legislature to change the law so that will be legal? After it has been illegal for who knows how many years. Right, we are all such idiots.

53) American Sporting Dog Alliance

I've added a link to their message board over there on the right.

This group has a very good handle on the recent plethora of dog legislation.

I highly recommend their site and the efforts of their John Yates.

52)Number of abandoned animals increases, animal attacks remain steady

So, the newspaper report said there were 83 dog bites in the county last year.I wondered how they determined that and if there was a report that showed that.So I FOIA'd. Nope, no report and I don't know how they came up with the number.

click to enlarge

http://argus-press.com/articles/2009/03/28/news/news3.txt#blogcomments

Number of abandoned animals increases, animal attacks remain steady

By NATHAN BRUTTELL Argus-Press Staff Writer

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:43 PM EDT

SHIAWASSEE COUNTY - When the economy is bad, people are forced to move to find work, leaving behind pets they cannot afford.

During the winter and spring months the problem has only been increasing, according to local officials. Despite the growing number of strays in the county, animal attacks have shown signs of slowing.

There were 83 dog bite reports in Shiawassee County in 2008, compared to 14 so far in 2009, according to Animal Control. From Jan. 1 to March 12, 2008, there were 14 dog bite reports and only nine in that same timeframe this year.

Animal Control Deputy Lauren Shelly, who has worked for the office for more than two years, said the call volume has increased lately.

“It seems like we have a lot more strays now,” Shelly said. “We don't know the circumstances these animals were left in but we've picked up more (animals) this year than in the past.”

Animal Control Shelter Officer Doreen Hilgendorf said the office has had to take in more animals this year.

“We've been running pretty full most of the winter,” she said. “Normally the winters are times where we get to relax a little bit. This was not one of those winters unfortunately.”

Hilgendorf said that while the office cannot track animal histories, “we are certainly seeing a lot more abandonments in properties lately.”

Shiawassee Humane Society Kennel Manager Amanda Reed said she has also seen more animals brought in during the last few months.

“It's just getting worse,” Reed said. “Our waiting list for people bringing in cats is up to five months now.”

Reed said there is one bright side to the spring and summer months.

“With the weather warming up a lot more families are looking for dogs,” she said. “We've been able to keep the waiting list low with dogs because we've been able to adopt out a lot more.”

But there is also a growing number of animals left illegally at the shelter.

“In the morning I often pull in and see dogs and cats abandoned here,” she said. “We've only seen a handful this year, but it's also getting worse.”

Reed estimated the shelter sees two or three animals dropped off illegally per week.

“Especially with the economy so bad, we're seeing it more,” she said. “It's a last resort for people but we're getting it more frequently.”

Reed said if animals are dropped off, the shelter is forced to make room in the already overcrowded kennels. The Humane Society has a policy that only terminally ill or severely ill-tempered animals will be euthanized.

“But it might be something we have to change,” she said. “No one wants it to happen, but it may come to that at some point if the situation doesn't improve.”

Reed said there are several obediant dogs and cats at the Society looking for homes. She also said because the shelter coordinates with the Michigan State University Teaching Hospital and veterinary students, adoption fees are at a reduced price starting at $40. Those with questions for the Humane Society are asked to call 723-4262 or visit the shelter at 2752 W. Bennington Road in Owosso.

- Contact Nathan Bruttell at 725-5136 extension 231 or nbruttellarguspress@gmail.com. Post comments about this story online at http://www.argus-press.com/.

I don't know what that means? coordinates with??? Maybe provides lab animals for?

51) Michigan 2009 Dog Licenses by County

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

Average $7.43 and $15.93

In all counties you may obtain a dog license
from your county treasurer at any time all year long
or up until March 1
from your township treasurer, city treasurer (or city clerk)
or in some areas from a veterinarian or animal control

You can obtain by mail.

Some county websites have a form you can print and fill out.
All they need is breed, sex, age, color of dog.
Copy of the Rabies certificate signed by a veterinarian
and copy of spay/neuter certificate (if applicable) also
signed by a veterinarian (a copy of the bill works, too)

Clinton County Michigan Animal Control **
Clinton County Michigan
Ingham County Michigan Dog License $45
Ingham County Michigan Ordinance bad
Outrageous/illegal Kennel inspection fee
Kent County Michigan
Kent County Michigan Ordinance bad
Muskegon County Michigan $50
Muskegon County Michigan Ordinance bad
Oceana County Michigan

50) HS AC Shelter Reports 2000 thru 2008

click to enlarge

If you are looking for a shelter report for other than Shiawassee County I have an EXCELL spreadsheet that has all shelter reports for the state of Michigan 2004-2006 and I would be happy to email them to you.

49) Animal Control 2003-2008 Actuals and 2009 Budget

click to enlarge

The shelter handles about the same number of cats as dogs, only most cats are killed.

Do you see any revenue generated by cats? Not much.

The Dog Law provides the license fee may be set sufficient to cover the cost of administering the Dog Law as it pertains to dogs. This county is generating profit from dog licenses. That is wrong! and a violation of the dog law.

2003 looks like big loss, but I don't have the treasurer's expense

2004 Big loss (as it should be) but doesn't appear as big a loss as 2003

2004 also reduced staff / budget

2005 Doubled and Tripled dog license fee / now shows a profit (wrong)

2005 after assuring the increased license fees would go into the shelter (did not)

etc

There should always be a big loss as the animal control department handles ALL animal complaints. Dog license fees are only legally designated to cover administering the dog law.

48) Open Forum Threads

of interest and related to animal control issues


Animal Control "Issues" - sorry guys
Cats, Again!
City/animal ordinances
Dog Poop down town
end the poo
Going to the dogs!
HA! Dog license $60 now
Improperly charged fees had to be paid back?
JOKE OF THE DAY - compliance check for dog licenses
NEW DOG CATCHER ON BOARD
Pot vote symbolic: Backers say passage may help cause statew
Rabies confirmed in bats in Shiawassee County
Rabies Free - US Declared Canine-- WOW this a major milestone
Shiawassee County 2008 Budget "Schedule"
Shiawassee Humane Society to sell dog licenses all year
Time to DUMP the DOG
Cats Vs. Dogs
Reading Test (sorta) - I need an explanation.
RABIES IN MICHIGAN
Found dog



Hopefully these won't disapear too soon.


Those posts will stay there on the forum ... they won't scroll off or purge.

However the authors do have the option of going back to edit their posts later.
(not anymore-they will stay)

47) Randy O. Colbry - Opinion My RESPONSE

Randy O. Colbry
Prosecuting Attorney
Shiawassee County
Michigan

LEGAL OPINION

RE: DOG LICENSE FEES

In 1973 Section 29a was added to the dog law of 1919. MCL 287.29a provides as follows:

Sec 29a. The board of county commissioners by ordinance may establish an animal control agency which shall employ at least 1 animal control officer. The board of county commissioners any assign the animal control agency to any existing county department. The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have animal control ordinance. The county’s animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expense incurred in animal control. The ordinance is subject to sections 6 and 30.

There is no MCL 287.29a. There is a Sec 29a and that would be MCL 287.289A.

Because of this amendment to the dog law, the 1955 attorney general opinion provided by Ms Lauro indicating a county board of commissioners did not have the power to adopt regulations pertaining to dog kennels is, in my opinion, obsolete.

Well, his OPINION IS WRONG!

MCL 287.29a specifically directs; however, that a county animal control ordinance is subject to section 6 of the dog law (MCL 287.266). MCL 287.266(5) provides in part: “The county board of commissioners may set license fees in the county budget at a level sufficient to pay all the county’s expenses of administering this act as it pertains to dogs.”

This section applies to individual dog licenses and license fees.

This would, indeed, be the provisions of sec 29a and sec 6(5) as it pertains to individual dog licenses.

It is my opinion that dog license fee revenue must reasonably relate to county expenses for animal control programs, facilities, and personnel involving domestic dogs.

I would even agree with that.

It is obvious such costs go well beyond the animal control budget and include costs incurred by the courts, the prosecutor, the treasurer and the county clerk as well costs related to the operation, maintenance and depreciation of the animal shelter.

However, if it is so obvious such costs go beyond the animal control budget why does the county’s accounting system not account for such costs? Such obvious costs should be readily available for review and support of whatever license fee is charged.

Costs incurred by the courts are borne by those who are charged with violations. How can we justify including that cost in the license fee and then charging the violator for that cost, too?

Costs incurred by the treasurer are minimal, not accounted for and the treasurer could do a better job of accounting for license fees. He cannot tell you how much is for kennels, how much for altered dogs or how much for unaltered dogs. It really isn’t that difficult to record. Nobody can tell you they have a record of a dog’s license and rabies vaccination. That was what the original idea behind licensing dogs was all about. Assuring immunization for rabies and keeping a record of it. So that in the event anyone is bitten by a dog, they can know the dog was vaccinated and they will not have to go through treatment for rabies.

Costs incurred by the clerk are also minimal and are not accounted for.

The animal control budget would include the operation and maintenance costs.....but for everything, not just dogs and not just the dog law of 1919. The cost of administering the dog law of 1919 as it pertains to dogs is not even close to being accounted for. NOT EVEN CLOSE!. I believe those costs need to be accounted for, if the dog license fee is to be based on them.

It is further my belief that in determining an appropriate dog license fee the county is not limited to the budget year in question but could consider several years of costs in arriving at an appropriate fee structure.

That may be true, but I should think there should be a reasonable accounting of those costs. As it is, the license fee is an arbitrary wild guess (as much as the traffic will bear) based on arbitrary wild guesses.

Section 10 of the dog law (MCL 287.270) provides for the inspection and licensure of dog kennels and requires a fee of $10.00 for 10 dogs or less and $25.00 for more than 10 dogs.

Provides for the inspection of a NEW kennel, provided the county accepts this provision. Which this county has not. In which case the kennel is not even subject to inspection AT ALL..

MCL 287.29a does not direct that a county animal control ordinance is subject to section 10.

Since there is no MCL 287.29a I will assume he is talking about MCL 287.289a sec 29a.........and why would it direct that the ordinance is subject to section 10?

Since he states “This section applies to individual dog licenses and license fees.”

This section has nothing to do with kennels (sec 10 deals with kennels).

Sec 29a was added by Act 349 eff immed Jan 9, 1973. This same act also amended MCL 287.280 sec 10 referring to kennels and MCL 287.270b sec 10b referring to a kennel ordinance that a city, township or village may adopt providing it has the same terms, conditions and fees as section 10.

Nothing is stated about a county creating their own regulations pertaining to kennels.

If there were to be any changes for a county, I believe such changes could have been easily made at the same time by Act 349 eff immed Jan 9, 1973.

In my opinion, the county is free to regulate kennels and provide an appropriate fee structure under the terms of its animal control ordinance, and is not bound by the fee structure set forth in MCL 287.29a.


MCL 287.29a does not exist. If he is referring to sec 29a, there is no fee structure in sec 29a. Sec 29a says the county ordinance is subject to sec 6 and 30. Sec 6 (MCL 287.289a). MCL 287.266 Dog licenses; application; resolution; provisions; proof of vaccination. Sec 6 (5) does say the county may set the fee....etc (individual dog license) and sec 30 provides:


287.290 Municipal animal control ordinances; certificate of vaccination.

Sec. 30.

A city, village or township by action of its governing body may adopt an animal control ordinance to regulate the licensing, payment of claims and providing for the enforcement thereof. A city, village, county or township adopting a dog licensing ordinance or ordinances shall also require that such application for a license, except kennel licenses, shall be accompanied by proof of vaccination of the dog for rabies by a valid certificate of vaccination for rabies, with a vaccine licensed by the United States department of agriculture, signed by an accredited veterinarian.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- Am. 1921, Act 310, Eff. Aug. 18, 1921 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 329, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 5275 ;-- Am. 1933, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 28, 1933 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- Am. 1943, Act 209, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1943 ;-- CL 1948, 287.290 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 22, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 125, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1953, Act 172, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1953 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 211, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 195, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 229, Eff. Mar. 30, 1972 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 349, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

Sec 30 was also amended by Act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973 and still left “except kennel licenses” as part of the provisions, which would make no reasonable sense if AG Opinion 1897 were to be made obsolete by act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973.

In my opinion act 349 imd eff Jan 9, 1973 does not make AG Opinion 1897 obsolete. All of the issues addressed by Ag Opinion 1897 are still contained within the Dog Law of 1919, the county is not free to regulate kennels, and the county is bound by the fee structure for kennels set in section 10. This the county has accepted and acknowledged by lowering their kennel license fees to comply with state law in 2005.

Further, it is my opinion that a reasonable accounting must support the fee designated by the county for an individual license fee, be it for one year or more than one year.