An organization dedicated to protecting the rights of animal owners in Kentucky and Texas, the Rural Animal Owners Alliance, is bringing to light a proposed Kentucky law that could have significant ramifications for property rights and other vital issues. The bill in question is HB188, which details procedures for dealing with dogs determined to be “vicious” by a court of law.
The bill introduces procedures for handling cases in which a defendant alleged to have violated the law by harboring a vicious dog is found incompetent to stand trial.
If a court finds that a defendant alleged to have violated subsection (5)(a) of Section 2 of this Act is incompetent to stand trial under KRS Chapter 504, the Commonwealth shall petition the court to conduct a hearing to determine if the dog is a vicious dog.
The proposed legislation also outlines consequences for owners whose dogs are deemed to be vicious. These include destroying the animal or seizing it if it attacks a person or injures livestock on another person’s property: “Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person.”
The bill would also allow a vicious dog to be returned to its owner, provided that it is “confined in a locked enclosure at least seven feet high or a locked kennel run with a secured top.”
Finally, the measure sets forth legal penalties for those found to have harbored a vicious dog.
If the person fails to appear at the time fixed, or if upon a hearing of the parties and their witnesses, the court finds the person charged is the owner or keeper of the dog in question, and that the dog has viciously and without cause, attacked a human being when off the premises of the owner or keeper, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in KRS 258.990(4)
This means anyone who runs afoul of this law could be subject to fines and ordered to pay “all damages for personal injuries resulting from the bite of the dog, cat, or ferret.”
On the surface, the bill might appear to be a method for ensuring public safety and accountability for dog owners. However, there are some issues with the proposal related to Constitutional rights. The RAOA notes that it creates “a hearing for the removal and banning of dog ownership or possession in cases where a person incompetent to stand trial is charged with harboring a vicious dog.”
“This bill screams red flag laws, but instead of guns, it’s using ‘vicious dogs,’” the group pointed out. The organization laid out some other problems with the bill:
The concern with such laws often revolves around the potential for abuse or subjective interpretation.
Here’s how it could play out:
Subjectivity: Determining someone’s mental health or competency can be subjective and open to interpretation. This raises concerns about whether individuals might be unfairly targeted or have their rights violated based on biased assessments.
Abuse of Power: There’s a risk that authorities could abuse these laws to target individuals they disagree with politically or personally, using mental health or competency assessments as a pretext for disarmament.
Due Process: Critics argue that these laws may deprive individuals of their property (dog) without due process, meaning they may not have the opportunity to defend themselves or challenge the decision before their rights are restricted.
Stigmatization: There’s also a concern that these laws could further stigmatize mental illness, deterring individuals from seeking help for fear of losing their rights or being unfairly targeted.
Overall, the challenge lies in balancing public safety concerns with individual rights and ensuring that any laws enacted are fair, transparent, and not prone to abuse.
The RAOA also highlights the issue of property rights, pointing out that “[d]ogs are considered personal property under the law, and their destruction or the restriction on ownership could be seen as a deprivation of property.” This could be particularly problematic given the vague, ambiguous language in the bill related to the definition of a “vicious dog.” There is a chance that people could have their dogs unjustly seized or killed, if the legislation becomes law in Kentucky.
