Topic Table of Contents:   1.  Introduction  2.  Exercise of General Police Power to Impound or Kill Dogs 3.  Loose Dogs or Dogs Running at Large 4.  Notice of Impoundment 5.  Length of Impoundment 6.  Due Process and Impoundment 7.  Fourth Amendment Concerns and Impoundment 8.  Impoundment for Chasing Livestock or Game Animals   9.  Impoundment for Health Concerns  10.  Conclusion	Topics & Links - other documents in Web Center:   Police Shooting Pets Topic Area Damages for Companion Animals Return to Dog Ordinances Topic Page
	Non-Web Center Resources:

I. Introduction

There seems no greater exercise of police power in relation to dogs than a government’s ability to summarily seize or destroy dogs.  In fact, many states provide that an animal control officer or other appointed agent not only has a right to destroy offending dogs (usually those at large or deemed dangerous), but also a duty to do so.  Moreover, owners have little legal recourse against such action.  Most of the original legislation in this area dates back at least a century, rooted in real fears of marauding vicious dogs or the spread of rabies.  In any event, nearly all exercises of municipal power to restrain, regulate, and impound loose or vicious dogs are upheld as valid.  (For more on police powers, see the Detailed Discussion of State and Local Dog Laws).

II. Exercise of General Police Power to Impound or Kill Dogs

As noted in the Web Center paper on municipal police powers, state and local governing units are granted broad authority to control dogs.  Indeed, “[t]the power of the state has been exercised to regulate and control dogs to a greater extent than it has for any other class of domestic animals. . .”  4 Am. Jur. 2d Animals § 24.  Tennessee law exemplifies this broad police power given to municipalities to seize and destroy dogs.

Counties, by resolution of their respective legislative bodies, may license and regulate dogs and cats, establish and operate shelters and other animal control facilities, and regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals.

TN ST § 5-1-120.

Generally, this ability given to local governments to control dogs is broad.  State statutes often provide that the power to license, tax, and regulate loose dogs is vested in municipal governments.  See, AR 14-54-1102; OK ST T. 4 § 43.  In any event, few challenges to ordinances or statutes requiring dogs wear licenses or be properly restrained survive judicial scrutiny.  Instead, courts give broad deference to a government’s inherent police power in this arena.  This is especially true with regard to loose dogs or dogs at large. 

III. Loose Dogs or Dogs Running At Large

Clearly, the most common reason a dog is impounded is because it is found running loose with no license tags.  As dogs are viewed as personal property in every state, a dog that bears no tag of owner identification may be considered by statute to be abandoned property.  4 Am. Jur. 2d Animals § 58.  This ability to then seize “abandoned” dogs extends to the summary disposition of such property, depending on the time frame given under statute.  As a consequence “. . . a state may by statute provide that impounded dogs and cats, which fall within the meaning of abandoned property, may be turned over to specified institutions for medical experimentation and research . . . since the police power of a state extends to preventing waste of resources . . .”  Id.  In fact, this ability of a municipality to sell or give pets to research facilities was upheld as a valid exercise of police power in Kovar v. City of Cleveland, 102 N.E.2d 472 (Ohio App. 1951). 

In Kovar, Petitioner LaVeda Kovar and others sought to enjoin the City of Cleveland from disposing of dogs located in the city dog pound by giving or selling them to hospitals or laboratories for experimental and research purposes.  The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the City of Cleveland had the right in promoting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, which was granted through both the constitutional right of home rule and by powers conferred directly to municipal corporations by state statute.  This power extended to the instant ordinance that provided that no dog should be permitted to run at large unless muzzled and that any dog found at large and unmuzzled would be impounded.  Further, by carrying out this mandate under the ordinance, the city’s disposition of the animals that were legally impounded was simply the performance of a ministerial or administrative duty.  Id.

In many states, local authorities are given this near complete discretion to adopt strict dog seizure laws.  In Oklahoma, local municipalities are given broad authority to enact measures relating to the seizure and killing of dogs at large.

The board of county commissioners may also regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and authorize the humane killing or disposal of dogs, found at large, contrary to any ordinance regulating the same. 

OK ST T. 4 § 43.  In fact, this ability to enact ordinances related to dogs may not be discretionary for a particular municipality.  New Mexico state law, for example,  mandates that each municipality and county enact ordinances for the seizure of dogs running at large.  NM ST § 77-1-12.

But what defines a loose dog, or dog-at-large?  A dog can be deemed “running-at-large” if it is found not in the immediate control of a capable person or in a suitable enclosure on its owner’s property.  Further, some states define loose dogs at those that are not wearing visible dog tags on a collar.  Most states distinguish between loose dogs with a visible collar and dog tags and those dogs that are unlicensed or uncollared.  New Hampshire describes the term “at large” in its Dog Control Law:

II. In this section, "at large" means off the premises of the owner or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of personal presence and attention as will reasonably control the conduct of such dog, unless accompanied by the owner or custodian.

III. Any authorized person may seize, impound or restrain any dog in violation of this section and deliver said dog to a person or shelter authorized to board dogs. Such dogs shall be handled as strays or abandoned dogs pursuant to applicable laws.

NH ST § 466:30-a.  Under this definition, a dog running free at a park out of sight of its owner is loose, as is a dog that has escaped from its pen while not wearing a collar.  The law does not distinguish between the reasons a dog might be loose in deciding its fate.  Other statutes focus on the license status of the dog in determining whether it is subject to seizure as a loose dog.  New York law, for instance, provides that a dog control officer may seize dogs for any of the following:

(a) any dog which is not identified and which is not on the owner's premises; and

(b) any dog which is not licensed, whether on or off the owner's premises.

(c) any licensed dog which is not in the control of its owner or custodian or not on the premises of the dog's owner or custodian, if there is probable cause to believe the dog is a dangerous dog.

(d) any dog which poses an immediate threat to the public safety.

Promptly upon seizure the dog control officer shall commence a proceeding as provided for in subdivision four of section one hundred twenty-one of this article. 

NY AGRI & MKTS § 118.  Thus, according to subsection b above, any unlicensed dog is subject to seizure.  Similarly, Hawaii law does not distinguish between unlicensed dogs in the presence of their owners; all unlicensed dogs are subject to mandatory seizure. 

. . .[E]very officer shall seize any unlicensed dog found running at large or found upon any public highway, street, alley, court, place, square, or grounds, or upon any unfenced lot, or not within a sufficient enclosure, whether in the immediate presence of the owner or otherwise, and confine it in a pound or any suitable enclosure for a period of forty-eight hours, during which time it shall be subject to redemption by its owner by payment of the license due. . .

HI ST § 143-8.  Many other states have adopted a mandatory seizure approach when it comes to unlicensed, loose dogs.

In Mississippi, dogs found running-at-large without a collar and license tag will be killed.  MS ST § 41-53-11.  In fact, the statute provides that, not only is such action lawful, but it is the duty of any sheriff, conservation officer or peace officer to do so.  Further, an owner cannot maintain an action for such killing.  The statute later provides that it is also the duty of the officer to keep the dog for a period of five days.   MS ST § 41-53-11.  How this provision squares with the duty provision to kill unlicensed dogs is unclear.  Other states provide a similar scheme.  Idaho also provides that, in localities where a measure has been adopted, it is the duty of the county sheriff to seize and impound all uncollared and unlicensed dogs.  ID ST § 25-2804.  However, unlike Mississippi, the officer is required to impound the dog for a period of five days and must make a reasonable effort to notify the owner.  ID ST § 25-2804.  In Arkansas, municipalities have the power to enact measures to prevent the running at large of dogs and to authorize their destruction.  Prior to destroying the dog, the municipality shall give five days notice, taking the form of a certified letter.  AR ST 14-54-1102.  This, of course, presumes that the dog is either licensed or identified in some manner such that notice can be made to the owner.  The statute does not itself make a distinction between licensed or unlicensed dogs.

Kentucky recognizes that a dog warden may not always be able to impound a loose dog.  As a result, he or she is given authority to kill an unlicensed loose dog.

(1) Peace officers, dog wardens, or animal control officers shall seize and impound any dog which does not bear a proper license tag or other legible identification which is found running at large, but if an officer, dog warden, or animal control officer, after diligent effort to do so, should fail to seize the dog, it shall then become his duty to destroy the dog by any reasonable and humane means.

KY ST § 258.215.  Thus, Kentucky mandates that officers destroy a loose and unrecoverable dog.  KY ST § 258.215(1). 

The importance of whether dogs are wearing license tags or collars when found at large was illustrated by a case from Vermont.  This case apparently held that when dogs are wearing collars when found at large, a court cannot grant a directed verdict for the constable who killed them.  Vosburgh v. Kimball, 285 A.2d 766 (Vt. 1971).  In Vosburgh, the dog owner appealed a directed verdict granted for the defendant-farmer, who allegedly wrongfully impounded the dogs, and the town constable, who allegedly wrongfully killed the dogs.  While the Vermont Supreme Court held that the farmer acted reasonably when he secured the dogs overnight after finding them chasing his injured cows, there was question as to the constable's actions.  The statute in question authorized the constable to kill dogs not registered or wearing a prescribed collar.  This raised an issue as to whether or not one or both of plaintiff's dogs were properly collared.  The conflicting evidence adduced at trial precluded a directed verdict for constable.  Id.  Since many statutes provide different dispositions for unlicensed dogs, evidence of registration and collar may be crucial to an impounded dog’s fate, according to this case.

The legal status of a loose dog may differ by statute.  In Maryland, a dog running at large is a "nuisance" under law.  The statute provides that such dogs are deemed a nuisance and may be seized or killed if the dog warden is unable to catch the dog:

(b) Any dog found running at large without the proper license tag attached in accordance with the provisions of this subtitle is a nuisance and is subject to seizure, detention and destruction. The dog warden or his duly authorized deputies, whenever possible, shall seize and impound any dog found running at large without the proper license tag attached. When the dog warden or his duly authorized deputies are not able to catch a dog running at large without a license tag, they may shoot or otherwise kill the dog. 

MD CODE, Art. 24, § 11-510(b).  The nuisance angle allows the appropriate authorities to act in an expeditious manner by statute.

A loose dog may also pose a financial risk to owners.  While most states impose some nominal fine to retrieve an impounded dog, Rhode Island provides that impounded dogs may be destroyed in five days if the owner fails to pay a hefty fine.

[Dogs] may be confiscated by a dog officer and destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner after the expiration of a five (5) day waiting period exclusive of Sundays and holidays which shall not include any day or part thereof that the public pound is not open for a specified period of time, not to be less than one half (1/2) the normal hours of business, for the purpose of reclaiming any such dog by its rightful owner. In addition, the owner or keeper shall pay a five hundred fifty dollar ($550) fine.

RI ST § 4-13.1-9.  Many owners may then face the reality of raising a substantial amount of money to retrieve a family pet.

Minnesota extends the ability to seize a loose dog to anyone, not just a duly appointed law enforcement or animal control officer. 

Any person may seize, impound, or restrain any unlicensed dog which the person may find running at large. The fact that a dog is without a license attached to a collar shall be presumptive evidence that the dog is unlicensed. The sheriff and sheriff's deputies, any marshal or constable or other police officer shall seize, impound or restrain any dog for which no license has been issued and for which one is required. Any officer who shall seize, restrain, impound, or kill any dog found in any place without a license. . .

MN ST § 347.14.  It is unclear from the statute whether this provision will immunize a civilian from liability resulting from the seizure.

Ohio provides only for the seizure of licensed dogs under very circumscribed conditions when on their owners premises.  “A dog that wears a valid registration tag may be seized on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer and impounded only in the event of a natural disaster.”  OH ST § 955.12.  This unusual provision recognizes the enhanced legal status of a licensed dog.

Many states treat dogs at large as stray or abandoned dogs.  Dogs that are impounded and not claimed within a specified amount of time are generally regarded as abandoned, regardless of evidence of ownership, and may be disposed of according to state law.  ME ST T. 7 § 3912; DC CODE § 8-1805(f).  New Jersey provides several instances under which a person appointed by a local government must seize offending dogs, including those deemed stray.  These include:

(a) Any dog off the premises of the owner or of the person keeping or harboring said dog which said official or his agent or agents have reason to believe is a stray dog;

(b) Any dog off the premises of the owner or of the person keeping or harboring said dog without a current registration tag on his collar;

(c) Any female dog in season off the premises of the owner or of the person keeping or harboring said dog;

(d) Any dog or other animal which is suspected to be rabid;

(e) Any dog or other animal off the premises of the owner reported to, or observed by, a certified animal control officer to be ill, injured or creating a threat to public health, safety or welfare, or otherwise interfering with the enjoyment of property.

NJ Stat. 4:19-15.16.

Missouri adds a twist to the seizure of dogs at large.  All cities and town marshals are required to impound dogs at large without collars.  These dogs are kept for one week after which the dogs shall be put to death by humane methods.  Interestingly, the statute also provides that, “Any marshal who shall fail or refuse to take up and impound any such dog shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof fined not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five dollars.”  MO ST § 273.100.  Thus, not only does Missouri mandate the seizure of dogs at large, but law enforcement officers who fail to comply with this statute incur criminal prosecution.

In states with a hunting tradition, loose dogs are spared if engaged in hunting activities.  Kentucky law recognizes that a wandering dog at night might simply be a lost hunting dog, as opposed to a marauding canine.  Thus,

[a]ny peace officer, dog warden, or animal control officer may seize or destroy any dog found running at large between the hours of sunset and sunrise . . . shall be under a duty to make a fair and reasonable effort to determine whether any dog found at large between sunset and sunrise is a hound or other hunting dog which has become lost temporarily from a pack or wandered from immediate control of its owner. . .

KY ST § 258.265.  The officer must then refrain from killing the dog if he or she is “reasonably sure that the dog is a hunting dog” unless it is found in the act of attacking livestock or humans.  KY ST § 258.265.

Finally, a dog may be subject to impoundment for failure of its owner to pay a license tax, or head tax.  In West Virginia, municipalities may enact a head tax on dogs.  While it is discretionary to impound a dog for which a tax has not been paid, the consequences once the dog is impounded are severe. 

It shall be the duty of the county assessor and his deputies of each county within the State, at the time they are making assessment of the personal property within such county, to assess and collect a head tax of one dollar on each male or spayed female dog and of two dollars on each unspayed female dog; Should an owner fail to pay the tax, the dog may be impounded.  If after 15 days the owner does not pay the tax, the sheriff may offer the dog for sale.  If he fails to sell the dog, the Should the sheriff fail to sell the dog so impounded within the time specified herein, he shall kill such dog and dispose of its body.

WV ST 7-7-6d.  Indiana also provides that dogs upon which a tax has not been paid are subject to seizure.  Indeed, the state provides a “round-up” day for these tax-evading dogs.

Sec. 14. On and after the fifteenth day of June of each year every dog on which the tax has not been paid as herein provided, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and it shall be the duty of the sheriff of every county, the marshal of every town, the police officer of every city, the constable of every township, and the members of the state police force or game wardens to cause such dogs to be captured and placed into city, town or county dog pounds. Such dogs may be reclaimed by their owners upon exhibition of evidence that the tax on such has been paid and upon payment of a reasonable fee not to exceed twenty-five cents ($.25) per day. In the event that the dogs impounded as provided in this chapter shall not be reclaimed within twenty (20) days, they shall be sold or destroyed as the impounding officials may decide. 

IN ST § 15-5-9-14.  Whether such an action occurs on that day in June is likely a matter of available local resources.  However, it illustrates the importance states place on the exercise of police power with regard to dogs.  Notably, however, a state statute mandating the destruction of loose dogs may preempt local decisions to impound stray animals. 

This was the situation in the case of Vukic v. Brunelle, 609 A.2d 938 (R.I., 1992).  In that case, the court held that the duty to kill a loose dog given through state statute overrode a local ordinance's impoundment scheme.  In Vukic, owners of a Great Dane dog and her pups filed suit against the officer who killed the dogs.  The dogs escaped their kennel and traveled to a neighbors’ residence, who were apparently frightened by the dogs after the dogs would not move away from their rabbit cages.  The neighbors then called constable/special police officer Roy Brunelle to remove the dogs from their property.  The officer observed that the dogs were uncollared and unlicensed, contrary to local and state law.  The testimony was contradictory whether the dogs acted aggressively toward the officer.  Ultimately, however, the officer shot the dogs, two of which were immediately killed. 

The Vukics filed suit in the Superior Court against the town of Lincoln and also against Brunelle in his individual capacity, which initially resulted in a jury award of $57,090. 

On appeal, the defendants argued  that the trial justice erred in failing to grant defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss the action in light of state legislation that required a dog officer destroy any dog found at large and not licensed and collared according to law.  General Laws 1956 (1976 Reenactment) § 4-13-12.  The court concluded that the Lincoln ordinance was superseded by the provisions of § 4-13-12 and that Brunelle acted according to law in his destruction of the Great Danes.  In fact, the court found that "[t]his charge was meant to be a legal duty to be carried out without exception."  Id.  The court found the evidence was undisputed that the Great Danes had escaped the confines of their owners' property and that none of them was collared with a license.  Thus, Brunelle had "an unqualified duty" to destroy the Great Danes.  Indeed, "[a]ny obligation created by the Lincoln ordinance to have acted otherwise, such as by impounding the dogs instead of killing them, must fall away in the face of the paramount state statute."  Id.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the provisions of § 4-13-12 requiring that dog officers destroy all unlicensed dogs found at large was "absurd, unjust, and ultimately archaic in light of the changes in Rhode Island since the enactment of the statute in 1896."  Id.  The plaintiffs contended that the statute was enacted when the state was primarily rural and the provisions in question were designed to control livestock damage by wild dogs.  While the court recognized that the state might be outdated, it declined to usurp the legislature's duty to amend or repeal the statute.  In most states where immediate destruction of loose dogs is not mandated by law, due process requires at least some form of notice of impoundment.  

IV. State Notice Requirements

Consistent with due process requirements, most state statutes mandate a notice scheme after a dog is impounded.  Notice statutes typically provide that the owner must be notified in writing, usually by certified mail.  These requirements generally give the dog owners between five and seven days to reclaim their dogs before the dogs are placed for adoption, sold to for scientific experimentation, or humanely destroyed.  The New Jersey statute provides a typical example of notice requirements:

If any animal so seized wears a collar or harness having inscribed thereon or attached thereto the name and address of any person or a registration tag, or the owner or the person keeping or harboring said animal is known, any person authorized by the governing body shall forthwith serve on the person whose address is given on the collar, or on the owner or the person keeping or harboring said animal, if known, a notice in writing stating that the animal has been seized and will be liable to be offered for adoption or destroyed if not claimed within seven days after the service of the notice.

NJ ST 4:19-15.16.  In New York, is given by certified mail:

6. Promptly upon seizure of any identified dog, the owner of record of such dog shall be notified personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, of the facts of seizure and the procedure for redemption. If notification is personally given, such dog shall be held for a period of seven days after day of notice, during which period the dog may be redeemed by the owner. If such notification is made by mail, such dog shall be held for a period of nine days from the date of mailing, during which period the dog may be redeemed by the owner. In either case, the owner may redeem such dog upon payment of the impoundment fees prescribed by subdivision four of this section and by producing proof that the dog has been licensed.

NY AGRI & MKTS § 118.  Again, a state may vary requirements depending on whether a dog is licensed or unlicensed.  Notice may appear in the form of a publication where dogs are found without owner identification.  This, in turn, affects the time period under which a dog must be retained by a facility. 

In Michigan, a dog pound is prohibited from selling or disposing of a dog within four days of its acquisition.  If the dog is wearing a license tag, the owner must be notified in writing and the animal cannot be disposed of within 7 days of mailing the notice.  MI ST §  287.388. 

A few states provide alternate notice schemes, to address situations where the owner address is unavailable.  In Minnesota, several alternative methods of notice are provided.

The officer to whom the dog is delivered shall, without delay, notify the owner, personally or through the United States mail, if such owner be known to the officer or can be ascertained with reasonable effort, but if the owner be unknown or cannot be ascertained, then the officer shall post written notice in three public places in the officer's town, giving a description of the dog, stating where it is impounded and the conditions for its release. If, after five days, the owner does not claim the dog the officer shall dispose of the dog in a proper and humane manner. 

MN ST § 347.14.  Kentucky also provides for notice by publication where no animal control facility exists.

Any animal shelter, public or private, which takes in stray dogs and does not have regular hours for public access, shall post semimonthly either in a local newspaper or the newspaper with the highest circulation in the county, the shelter location, hours of operation, the period that impounded dogs shall be held, and a contact number.

KY ST § 258.215(1).  In Ohio, owners may be derived from the municipality’s registration list.  Alternatively, notice by publication may occur.

The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by him, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law. If the owner, keeper, or harborer cannot be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, the officer shall post a notice in the pound or animal shelter both describing the dog and place where seized and advising the unknown owner that, unless the dog is redeemed within three days, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law.

OH ST § 955.12.  Publication allows owners who cannot be notified by mail a chance to redeem their pets.

As dogs are considered property in all states, the notice period gives time for title to this now abandoned property to pass the facility holding the dog so that it may dispose of the dog.  New Hampshire outlines this concept in its notice provision.

II. The mayor or aldermen or selectmen may issue their warrant to one or more of the police officers of such city or town who shall, after 24 hours from the publication of the notice required under paragraph I, impound all dogs found running at large contrary to such order. The dog owner shall be notified, if the owner's identity is known. Any dog impounded in accordance with this section who has been conclusively found to be rabid shall be destroyed in the most humane manner possible. After 7 consecutive days of impoundment, title of a dog shall pass to the facility holding the dog, unless the owner has claimed such dog. The owner of the dog shall be responsible for all costs associated with the impoundment of the dog under this section.

NH Stat. 466:29.  Such a notice scheme reflects the property status of dogs.  It also allows facilities to legally dispose of unclaimed animals.

Notice statutes may be vague as to the method of providing notice to the owner.  Alabama law provides that “[w]hen dogs and cats are impounded and if the owner thereof is known, such owner shall be given direct notice of the impoundment of said animal or animals belonging to him. . .”  AL ST § 3-7A-7.  The statute does not define what constitutes “direct notice.”  Similarly, ambiguous notice requirements may stem from the requirement of “reasonable notice” to the owners.  In the District of Columbia, the Mayor or his or her agent is required to a make a “prompt and reasonable attempt to locate and notify the owner” that his or her animal has been impounded.  DC CODE § 8-1805(b).  While the statute fails to specify what constitutes “prompt and reasonable,” a subsequent section provides that an impounded dog not redeemed by its owner within seven days is deemed abandoned.  DC CODE § 8-1805(f).  If notice is indeed given under Section b, thought the exact form is not specified, the owner has seven days from the date of the notice.  Finally, any animal abandoned without identification tags is deemed abandoned if not claimed in 5 days of its impoundment.  DC CODE § 8-1805(f).  Idaho also provides that the sheriff who has impounded a dog at large must make a “reasonable” effort to notify the owner without specifying what constitutes a reasonable effort.  ID ST § 25-2804.  If such an effort has been made, an unlicensed dog may be destroyed.  ID ST § 25-2804.    

Notice provisions may also apply outside of government contracted animal control agencies.  In Virginia, notice provisions for individuals who found companion animals and provide care to them are outlined by statute.

A. Any individual who finds a companion animal and (i) provides care or safekeeping, or (ii) retains a companion animal in such a manner as to control its activities shall, within 48 hours:

1. Make a reasonable attempt to notify the owner of the companion animal, if the owner can be ascertained from any tag, license, collar, tattoo, or other form of identification or markings, or if the owner of the animal is otherwise known to the individual; and

2. Notify the pound that serves the locality where the companion animal was found and provide to the pound contact information including at least a name and a contact telephone number, a description of the animal including information from any tag, license, collar, tattoo, or other identification or markings, and the location where the companion animal was found.

VA ST § 3.1-796.96:7.  This is ostensibly an attempt to immunize private agencies like veterinary offices from civil suits arising from disposal of abandoned animals.  Compliance with statutory notice requirements, whether by a public or private agencies, will usually suffice due process requirements for notice.  States generally proscribe minimum lengths of impoundment in an effort to ameliorate this harsh result. 

V. Length of Impoundment

States generally provide a period after which a dog is impounded when the rightful owner can reclaim the dog.  This period of time also gives local authorities time to notify the dog owner.  While this period varies from state to state, most provide for a five to seven day period of impoundment.  After this time has passed, most states are either authorized to place the animal for adoption, sell the animal, donate the animal for scientific research, or euthanize the animal. 

An examination of two statutes illustrates the differences in both time requirements and disposition of unclaimed pets.  Kentucky law provides that a seized dog shall be impounded for a period of five (5) or seven (7) days, to be determined by the local animal shelter prior to destruction.  KY ST § 258.215(1).  In West Virginia, a dog is given five days to redeem his or her dog from the time the notice was posted or given.  WV ST § 19-20-8.  The duration in West Virginia is dependent upon the notice given; in Kentucky notice is presumably irrelevant to the length of impoundment.

The time period for retention of impounded dogs may differ depending on whether the dog is identified by a dog tag.  In Tennessee, for example, the owner of an impounded dog that is wearing a tag will be notified by a postcard to claim the dog within five days or else the dog will be destroyed.  TN ST § 68-8-109.  In contrast, if a dog is not wearing a tag, the impounded dog will be destroyed within two days if not claimed.  TN ST § 68-8-109. 

Oregon also distinguishes between those dogs that are licensed and those that do not have tags or other identifiers.

Unless claimed by its keeper, a dog shall be impounded for at least three days if the dog is without a license or identification tag and for at least five days if it has a license or identification tag. A reasonable effort shall be made to notify the keeper of a dog before the dog is removed from impoundment.

OR ST § 609.090(2).

New York does not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed dogs in terms of how long an impounded dog is held.  In either case, a dog shall be held for five days from the day it was seized.  NY AGRI & MKTS § 118.  After that period, an owner forfeits title and the dog may be made available for adoption or euthanized.  NY AGRI & MKTS § 118.  The statute does allow municipalities to shorten this time period.

8. The redemption periods set forth above in this section notwithstanding, any municipality may establish the duration of such periods by local law or ordinance, provided that no such period shall be less than three days, except that where notice to the owner is given by mail, no such period shall be less than seven days.

NY AGRI & MKTS § 118. 

Maryland appears to have one of the shorter periods of retention prior to destruction.  The length of time in Maryland to impound dogs is reduced to 72 hours.  However, there does not appear to be any notice requirement.  Amazingly, despite the lack of notice, a dog may be legally killed by the county within 120 hours.

(d) Any dog seized and impounded shall be held for its owner for a period of 72 hours. During this period any dog seized shall be released to the owner, or his duly authorized representative, upon satisfactory proof of ownership, tender of a fee in whatever amount the County Commissioners determine for the costs of seizure and impounding, and upon presentation of the license for the dog.

(e) Any owner who does not redeem his dog within 72 hours forfeits all rights of ownership and the dog shall be the property of Calvert County. The dog shall remain impounded for an additional 48 hours, during which time any person desiring may obtain ownership of the dog by tendering the fee for the costs of seizure and impounding and by purchasing a license.