State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, has introduced a bill that would allow appeals of dangerous dog declarations to be heard in county courts at law.
The bill number is HB 297. The Legislature convenes Tuesday.
Previous legislation on the issue was flawed. It stated that dangerous dog cases could be appealed to county criminal courts in large counties, such as Tarrant. But under other laws, those courts do not have jurisdiction in civil cases, which is what a dangerous dog declaration is.
Randy Turner, an attorney specializing in animal-rights issues, said the same legislation was introduced during the last session but died in the Calendars Committee.
"This is a good bill," Turner said.
It not only clears up which court should hear the cases, but also calls for jury trials in municipal court for dangerous-dog cases, he said.
"When a trial judge knows that a case can't be appealed, he can do whatever he wants," Turner said. "There is no one around grading his papers."
Historically, municipal courts handled criminal cases but gradually started handling some civil matters, including dangerous-dog rulings, red-light camera cases and parking violations, which can't be appealed to the criminal court.
Rodriguez's bill addresses only the dangerous-dog issue.
The flaw in the appeal process came to light last fall when Thomas and Rana Soluri's two pit bulls, Lilo and Stitch, were declared dangerous by a Fort Worth municipal judge.
They discovered that their appeal couldn't go anywhere, and the Soluris, along with the Lexis Project, a national organization representing dangerous-dog owners in legal disputes, sued the city saying the ordinance was unconstitutional because the appeals process was flawed.
The Soluris did not return calls seeking comment on the new bill.
The controversy started in late August when the Soluris' neighbor filed a complaint with the city animal control division, describing how Lilo and Stitch broke through a fence and charged at her German shepherd puppy and her. The Soluris' dogs were seized Sept. 22 and declared dangerous five days later.
A state district judge prevented the city from euthanizing the dogs, and Rana Soluri agreed to comply with city rules so that her dogs would not be put down. The agreement required Soluri to pay about $2,700 for boarding and veterinary care and to comply with seven conditions set by a municipal judge.
The agreement ended the court case, but the family and their attorney said they were disappointed that they had no chance to settle what was called a "constitutional violation."
___________________________
Source: Star-Telegram (Campbell, 1/1)
No comments:
Post a Comment