Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 767.12
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 210576
...Thomas A. Bustin, County Atty., New Port Richey, for appellant. No Appearance for appellees. HALL, Judge. The appellant, the County of Pasco, challenges a trial court order permanently enjoining it from enforcing a dangerous dog classification pursuant to section 767.12, Florida Statutes (1991). The county contends the trial court erred in finding section 767.12 unconstitutional. We disagree with the county and affirm. The trial court, in its well-reasoned final order, has done an excellent job setting forth the facts of the instant case and explaining why section 767.12 is unconstitutional....
...s and restrictions substantially more rigid than prior to the classification, and upon an additional incident, the dog shall be destroyed, unless an appeal regarding the latter is successful. As to the "classification" stage, the statute provides in § 767.12(1), F.S....
...struck and prodded several times by Eric with a pool stick. No substantial evidence was presented showing that prior to that final moment when Eric again approached Sheba did Sheba exhibit any aggressive behavior whatsoever. Accordingly, pursuant to § 767.12(1), Fla....
...tion of "dangerous dog". Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that, as to the matter before this Court, defendant is permanently enjoined from issuing to Plaintiffs its "classification of dangerous dog", and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Section 767.12, Florida Statutes[,] is unconstitutional by its failure to provide for any hearing....
...In fact, once any animal has been legitimately reduced to private control, confinement, and possession, it becomes private property. Barrow v. Holland,
125 So.2d 749, 751 (Fla. 1960). When that occurs, the owner thereof cannot be deprived of the use thereof, except in accord with all of the elements of due process. Id. Under section
767.12, a dangerous dog classification, as well as its attendant restrictions, can conceivably obtain without a legitimate basis therefor, as there are no specific guidelines to which the classifying *232 agency must conform or specific findings it must articulate in making its final determination....
...n the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, to allow the enforcement of such restrictions before a dog owner is given an opportunity to be heard is clearly a violation of due process. We must therefore agree with the trial court that section 767.12 is unconstitutional....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1944507
...MacNamara, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Ocala, for Appellant. Rob McNeely of The McNeely Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellee. TORPY, J. This case involves a challenge by Appellee to a code board determination that her dogs are "dangerous," as defined by section 767.12, Florida Statutes (2006)....
...to exercise its jurisdiction, and was otherwise unavailable, we reverse and quash the writ. The Marion County Code Enforcement Board held a hearing to determine whether to classify Appellee's three Anatolian Shepherds as dangerous dogs, pursuant to section 767.12, Florida Statutes, and the Marion County Animal Ordinance....
...rder Dangerous Dog Classification" in the county court. The county court judge, sua sponte, issued an order to the parties, acknowledging receipt of Appellee's request for hearing and stating that it was acting in its appellate capacity, pursuant to section 767.12(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that "the owner may file a written request for a hearing in the county court to appeal the [dangerous dog] classification....
...Article V, section 6(b), Florida Constitution, sets out the jurisdiction of county courts and provides that county courts "shall exercise the jurisdiction prescribed by general law. Such jurisdiction shall be uniform throughout the state." The parties also properly agree that section 767.12(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), is such a general law and does empower the county court to hear Appellee's challenge to the Board's determination....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 183, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 489, 1994 WL 124318
a dangerous dog classification pursuant to section
767.12, Florida Statutes (1991). The court found that
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...In any event,
as discussed below and in footnote 6, infra, the procedures related to the
dangerous dog determination and resulting penalty are separate and distinct
from those associated with the proceedings that resulted in the county court’s
rendition of the Seizure Order. Hence, the availability of Florida Statutes
section 767.12(4)’s appellate remedy (authorizing an appeal to the circuit
court of a final determination of a dangerous dog designation or resulting
penalty) has no bearing on the county court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the
Rule 1.540(b) Motio...
... We begin with a general description of the framework governing the
County’s “dangerous dog” processes. Part II of chapter 767 of the Florida
Statutes codifies a comprehensive process for local animal control
authorities to investigate complaints of dangerous dogs.3 Section 767.12
contains an administrative protocol for designating dogs as “dangerous,” an
administrative hearing and penalty regime, and an appellate process for
review by the circuit court of the administrative designation, penalty or both.
See § 767.12(1)-(5), Fla. Stat. (2023).
Important to this case, section 767.12(1)(a) authorizes local animal
control authorities to immediately confiscate a dog being investigated
“because of a severe injury to a human being[.]” This subsection reads as
follows:
An animal that is the subject of a da...
...ed a human being, killed or
severely injured another domestic animal, or chased a person in a menacing
fashion.
6
required to humanely and safely keep the animal pending any
hearing or appeal.
§ 767.12(1)(a), Fla....
...procedures and criteria for the implementation of chapter 767.4 Pursuant to
section
767.14, the County adopted section 5-22 of its Code of Ordinances.
Relevant to this case is section 5-22(g), captioned “Confiscation and
confinement.” Although nothing in section
767.12(1)(a)’s immediate
confiscation authority references any court involvement in the confiscation
process, the County’s section 5-22(g) provides, in relevant part:
Animal Control Officers and law enforcement officers are her...
...(2023).
7
Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code § 5.22(g) (emphasis added).
B. Whether the County properly invoked the jurisdiction of the county
court to obtain the Seizure Order
Krasner is correct that no portion of section 767.12(1)(a) – authorizing
the immediate confiscation of a dog subject to a “dangerous dog
investigation because of severe injury to a human being” – contains any
specific authorization for an animal control authority to invoke the jurisdiction
of the county court....
...The Legislature’s broad delegation of implementation
authority to local governments found in section
767.14, however, provides
specific authorization for a local government, such as the County, to
“develop[] procedures and criteria for the implementation” of section
767.12(1)(a)....
...into the subject property, which may be done at any time, day or
night, weekday, weekend, or holiday.
We see no inconsistency between section 5-22(g)’s provision granting
the County the authority to institute appropriate judicial proceedings and
section 767.12(1)(a)’s specific legislative authorization for animal control
authorities to “immediately confiscate[]” animals subject to a dangerous dog
5
For example, the dog owner might try to sequester the dog and not allow
the animal...
...e
10
proceedings to obtain a seizure order. The County, rather, argues from a
practical and policy perspective, that giving a dog owner prior (or even
contemporaneous) notice of a pending confiscation under section
767.12(1)(a) could frustrate its efforts to seize the dog subject to
confiscation....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...nd (ii) a July 18, 2023
order that voided a March 30, 2023 ex parte final order that authorized the
County to confiscate appellees Louise and William Scott Davis’s allegedly
dangerous dog (case number 3D23-1304). The July 18th order also found
section 767.12 of the Florida Statutes to be “an unconstitutional delegation
of power.” We consolidated the two appeals.
Because both challenged orders were entered after the Davises
appealed the March 30th ex parte final order (case num...
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Although the County stated that his dog
exhibits potentially "dangerous propensities," which is a term used in section
767.13(2),
designating an animal as having "dangerous propensities" as that term is used in
section
767.13(2) is not within the County's authority.4 See generally §
767.12....
...nvestigation. Indeed, both
4IfAnimal Services had instead preliminarily determined that Strickland's
dog was dangerous, Strickland would clearly have been entitled to notice and a hearing
before any final determination was made. See § 767.12(1) (requiring animal control
authority to investigate reported incidents involving any dog that may be dangerous,
allowing an owner the opportunity for a hearing prior to making a final determination,
allowing the owner to file a written re...
