Defenders of Animals v. Sunderland

  • Filed: 12/12/2014
  • Status: Closed
  • Latest Update: Dec 12, 2014
Placeholder image

Summary

Lawsuit, filed in in Superior Court on behalf of Defenders of Animals and a North Kingstown family, challenges a North Kingstown ordinance that bars any “vicious” dog from being housed within a mile of a school or day-care facility. The ACLU first challenged this ordinance when the Town seized the "vicious" dogs of the resident even though she had complied with all requirements imposed by state hearing panel in order to keep the dogs. The ACLU contends that the town’s residency restriction conflicts with the state hearing panel decision and with state law that establishes detailed procedures and penalties regarding “vicious” dogs. The ACLU also argues the owners’ due process rights were violated when the Town seized the dogs under that ordinance after the owners had complied with the state decision.

Case Update: In April 2015 The two pitbulls were returned home while the ACLU court case challenging the seizure of the dogs moves forward. A Washington County Superior Court judge found that the ACLU had a likelihood of success its claim that the state law establishing detailed procedures for dealing with "vicious dogs" preempts a local ordinance barring any “vicious” dog from being housed within a mile of a school or day-care facility.

Attorney(s):
Mark Morse

News & Commentary

Apr 24, 2015

Court Finds ACLU Challenge Of "Vicious Dog" Ordinance Likely To Succeed; Orders Dogs Returned

The two pitbulls seized in October by North Kingstown officials despite the owner’s compliance with all relevant state laws will be returned home while the American Civil Liberties Union court case challenging the seizure of the dogs moves forward. A Washington County Superior Court judge Friday found that the ACLU had a likelihood of success its claim that the state law establishing detailed procedures for dealing with "vicious dogs" preempts a local ordinance barring any “vicious” dog from being housed within a mile of a school or day-care facility. The judge therefore ordered the return of the dogs, Balou and Ozzy, to Kristy Miserendino and her family. The ACLU filed the case, Defenders of Animals v. Sunderland, after town officials seized the dogs under the local residence restriction despite a ruling by a state panel that the family could keep the dogs if they took specified precautionary measures. A Town official informed the Miserendinos of the residency restriction only after they had decided not to appeal the hearing panel’s decision. The dogs have been held at the town shelter, which, the lawsuit points out, is also within a mile of a school.

Placeholder image
Nov 25, 2014

North Kingstown "Vicious Dog" Ordinance Challenged

If a dog is declared vicious, does a town have the right to seize the animal and potentially euthanize it solely because the pet owner lives within one mile of a school or daycare facility? The ACLU of RI has entered its appearance in a court case in order to challenge the enforcement of a North Kingstown ordinance that orders just that, and that has placed a local family in the position of losing their pets despite complying with all relevant state laws. The case also raises fundamental due process concerns since the town had already agreed in a legal proceeding that the animals could be kept if the owners took steps, which they did, to better confine the pets.

Placeholder image

Learn More About the Issues in This Case

Due Process View All Issues

Related News & Podcasts

News & Commentary
Apr 24, 2015
Placeholder image
  • Due Process

Court Finds ACLU Challenge Of "Vicious Dog" Ordinance Likely To Succeed; Orders Dogs Returned

The two pitbulls seized in October by North Kingstown officials despite the owner’s compliance with all relevant state laws will be returned home while the American Civil Liberties Union court case challenging the seizure of the dogs moves forward. A Washington County Superior Court judge Friday found that the ACLU had a likelihood of success its claim that the state law establishing detailed procedures for dealing with "vicious dogs" preempts a local ordinance barring any “vicious” dog from being housed within a mile of a school or day-care facility. The judge therefore ordered the return of the dogs, Balou and Ozzy, to Kristy Miserendino and her family. The ACLU filed the case, Defenders of Animals v. Sunderland, after town officials seized the dogs under the local residence restriction despite a ruling by a state panel that the family could keep the dogs if they took specified precautionary measures. A Town official informed the Miserendinos of the residency restriction only after they had decided not to appeal the hearing panel’s decision. The dogs have been held at the town shelter, which, the lawsuit points out, is also within a mile of a school.
News & Commentary
Nov 25, 2014
Placeholder image
  • Due Process

North Kingstown "Vicious Dog" Ordinance Challenged

If a dog is declared vicious, does a town have the right to seize the animal and potentially euthanize it solely because the pet owner lives within one mile of a school or daycare facility? The ACLU of RI has entered its appearance in a court case in order to challenge the enforcement of a North Kingstown ordinance that orders just that, and that has placed a local family in the position of losing their pets despite complying with all relevant state laws. The case also raises fundamental due process concerns since the town had already agreed in a legal proceeding that the animals could be kept if the owners took steps, which they did, to better confine the pets.