Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent Service Dogs | The above map highlights the states that have laws against the use of fraudulent service dogs. As of 2022, there are 33 states with what can be termed true bans on the fraudulent representation of pets as service animals. States without these laws may have laws that prohibit the fraudulent representation of assistance animals in housing, but those laws are not included on this map and can be found here. In all states, violation of these laws are misdemeanor offenses or civil infractions and some states require community service with an organization that serves the disabled as part of sentencing upon conviction. | State map | |||
| ME - Hunting - Title 12. Conservation. | 12 M. R. S. A. § 10654 | ME ST T. 12 § 10654 | This law reflects Maine's hunter harassment provision. The law splits the conduct into two possible offenses. First, a person may not intentionally or knowingly interfere with the lawful hunting, fishing or trapping of a wild animal, wild bird or fish. Second, a person may not intentionally or knowingly disturb or attempt to disturb a wild animal, wild bird or fish with the intent to interfere with the hunting, fishing or trapping of a wild animal, wild bird or fish. A person who violates either section commits a civil violation for which a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 may be adjudged. | Statute | |
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| CA - Cruelty - § 13012.8. Contents of annual report; violations of § 597 | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 13012.8 | CA PENAL § 13012.8 | This new law effective on January 1, 2017 requires the annual report published by the Department of Justice to include information concerning arrests for violations of Section 597 (the cruelty to animals provision). | Statute | |
| In re: Lee Marvin Greenly | 2012 WL 3877414 (U.S.D.A. Aug. 22, 2012) | Respondent Lee Marvin Greenly is an individual who operates what he describes as a photographic educational game farm along the scenic Kettle River near Sandstone, Minnesota. He is a licensed exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act. A USDA complaint alleged that between March 14, 2006 and October 19, 2010 the Respondents committed some thirty-seven separate violations of the Act and its Regulationsincluding (a) failing to provide adequate veterinary care to their animals; (b) failing to establish a mechanism for communicating with the veterinarian; (c) failing to construct structurally sound housing facilities; (d) failing to timely remove and dispose of food waste; (e) failing to appropriately store food; (f) failing to adequately enclose outdoor facilities; (g) failing to make, keep and maintain adequate and appropriate records; (h) failing to provide environmental enrichment for the animals; (i) failing to allow access for unannounced inspections of the facility, the animals and records; (j) failing to handle animals so as to avoid trauma or physical harm; and (k) failing to handle animals so that there was minimal risk to the public and the animals by permitting direct contact between dangerous animals and members of the public, resulting in injuries to the public on three occasions, death to a neighbor's pet, and mandatory euthanization of one of the animals following one incident. In this order, an Administrative Law Judge issued a cease and desist order, as well as revoked Respondent’s license due to the violations. | Case | ||
| IL - Exotic pets - 5/48-10. Dangerous animals | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-10 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-10 | This Illinois law states that no person shall have a right of property in, keep, harbor, care for, act as custodian of or maintain in his or her possession any dangerous animal or primate except at a properly maintained zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, circus, college or university, scientific institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, hound running area, or animal refuge in an escape-proof enclosure. A "dangerous animal" is defined as a lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, bear, hyena, wolf or coyote.This Section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of a primate before January 1, 2011, from continuing to possess that primate if the person registers the animal by providing written notification to the local animal control administrator on or before April 1, 2011. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4043.2. Restricted use of drugs, medication and other substances | 9 NY ADC 4043.2 | 9 NYCRR 4043.2 | This regulation states which drugs and medications are permitted to be used in racehorses in New York, and how and when they may be administered. | Administrative | |
| Barrington v. Colbert | CO/1273/97 |
A net was placed over one opening of a land drain and a terrier dog sent into the other entrance with the objective of prompting a fox to run into the net. Magistrates acquitted the defendants of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the fox contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a). The Divisional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, holding that, applying Rowley v Murphy [1964] 2 QB 43, the fox was not a "captive animal" within the meaning of s 15(c) of the 1911 Act, mere confinement not being sufficient, and was therefore outside the protection of that Act. |
Case | ||
| Panattieri v. City of New York | 53 Misc. 3d 865, 37 N.Y.S.3d 431 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016) | 2016 WL 4691555, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 26283 |
Ceasar, a mixed breed dog, was seized by police after he killed another dog and injured the other dogs’ owner. Petitioners, Kristina & Douglas Panattieri, owned Ceasar and demanded his return to their custody. They also challenged the determination by Respondent, Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), to execute Ceasar pursuant to the New York City Health Code (24 RCNY) § 161.07. The Petitioners argued that Ceasar’s execution would be unconstitutional under the City Code because it was preempted by the state statute, Agriculture & Markets Law § 123.The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their petition and held that the New York City Health Code was not preempted by the state statute. The Court reasoned that the Agriculture and Markets Law § 107(5), which governed licensing, identification, and control of dogs, expressly allowed municipalities to enact their own Codes governing dangerous dogs. However the City Codes were to incorporate standards that were as or more protective of public health and safety than those set forth in the state statute. The New York City Code met the requirement and was therefore not preempted by state law. |
Case | |
| Woudenberg v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 794 F.3d 595 (6th Cir., 2015) | 2015 WL 4503212 (6th Cir., 2015) | According to Department of Agriculture regulations promulgated under the federal Animal Welfare Act (with certain exceptions not applicable here), persons who were in the business of buying and selling dogs and cats (i.e. class B dealers) may not obtain dogs or cats from an individual donor “who did not breed and raise them on his or her premises.” Another provision required a dealer in such a case to “obtain [ ] a certification that the animals were born and raised on that person's premises.” The question in this case was whether there was a violation when the dealer obtained the required certification, but the certification was false. The regulatory language was clear that a dealer violated the law by obtaining a dog or cat from an individual donor who did not breed or raise it on the donor's premises and it was still a violation even when the dealer in good faith obtained certifications that the animals had been so bred and raised. The certification requirement was an enforcement mechanism for the prohibition, not an exception. The Department of Agriculture therefore properly entered a cease-and-desist order against the petitioner. | Case |