01-30-96CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AGENDA
7:30 P. M., JANUARY 30, 1996
Call to order
Pledge to the Flag
Roll Call
1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 9, 1996.
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests regarding any matters that
are not listed on agenda.
3. New Business•
Case No. 0102 - Jule "Champ" Kaufmann, owner of American Pit Bull
dogs: KAYA, male and KIRRA, female, in violation of Florida State
Statute 767 and Section 4.28 of the Code - vicious dogs. Above
reference dogs are being declared dangerous due to their unprovoked
behavior to a person and another animal when off Mr. Kaufmann's
property, unleashed, on the beach in the City of Atlantic Beach.
~'
4. R Test for Lien Action:
None
t^
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ]11lNUTES
JANUARY 30, 1996
Call to order: PRESENT: Edward Martin, Chairman
Heywood Dowling, Jr.
Kathleen Russell
Ken Rogosheske
Theo K. Mitchelson
Richard S. Mann
AND: Suzanne Green Prosecuting Attorney
Alan Jensen, Legal Counsel
Karl Grunewald, Code Enf. Officer
Trudy Lopanik, Secretary
ABSENT: Lou Etta Waters
1. ARoroval of Minutes of January 9. 1995
Mr. Martin indicated that since this was a special called meeting that approval of the minutes would
be deferred until the next regular meeting.
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests repardinp anylnatters that are not listed on agenda.
No one wished to speak.
3. New Business:
Case No. 0102 -Jule "Champ^ Kaufmann, owner of American Pit Bull dogs: KAYA, male and
KIRRA, female, in violation of Florida State Statute 767 and Section 4.28 of the Code -vicious
dogs. Above reference dogs are being declared dangerous due to their unprovoked behavior
to a person and another animal when off Mr. Kaufmann's property, unleashed, on the beach
in the City of Atlantic Beach.
Mr. Martin read the case hearing procedure for Case No. 0102 and all witnesses were sworn in.
Suzanne Gwen, Prosecuting Attorney, indicated Mr. Kaufmann was represented by attorney, Robert
S. Willis, 317 6th Street, Atlantic Beach. She indicated that she and Mr. Kaufmann had been working
on the case and desired to come up with a disposition that would be satisfactory to the City, the
Boazd, and Mr. Kaufmaru4 and that she had made an offer to Mr. Willis and discussed the possibility
of the following agreement:
(~` (1) that Mr. Kaufmann would admit he violated section 4.6 of the ordinance, but not other ordinances
as cited by the city
(2) that Mr. Kaufmann would give the board his assurance in writing that the dog would not be
r"
Minutes, Code Enforcement Board
Special Meeting of January 30, 1996
Page 2
brought into the limits of Atlantic Beach,
(3) that the dog would be properly enclosed as required by the statute
(Q) that Mr. Kaufmann would pay medical and hospital bills that were a result of the incident,
(5) that there may be a fine assessed by the Board.
Ms. Green indicated she recommended that the board accept the proposal. She added that Mr.
Kaufmann resided in Jacksonville Beach, and at the time of the occurrence the dogs were under the
care of Mr, Kaufmann, a Jacksonville Beach resident, but the dogs were not leashed.
Mr. Martin indicated Mr. Kaufmann was found to be in violation of Sections 4.6 and 4.28 of the Code
of the City, and Florida State Statute 767.
Earl Grunewald, Code Enforcement Inspector, gave a chronology of events that had transpired
(Attached hereto and made a part hereof- Exhibit A). He recommended that the following action
be taken by the board:
...that the dog be classified as dangerous under FLSS 767 and vicious under Atl Beach Code 4-28,
~ and that the requirements o£767.12 be required of the owner.
...that since the owner resided in Jacksonville Beach that proper notification be given to that
jurisdiction.
...that should the dog be found in the City of Atlantic Beach in violation of any of its animal
ordinances, an immediate fine of $250 per day be levied against the owner of the dog.
)<Ir. Willis asked to be apprised of the citations that were brought against Mr. Kaufmann, to which
it was explained sections 4-26(d) no dog tag; and 4-29(d) dog bite, were the citations brought against
Mr. Kaufmann.
Betty D. Chinnis, 701 Beach Avenue # 103, indicated that on December 27, 1995 she was walking
her 9 3/4 lb miniature schnauzer on the beach shortly after 7:00 a. m. She heard a man yelling and
looked up to see that two dogs were racing towards her. She indicated she picked up her dog and
the two dogs attacked her. They were up on their hind legs and bit heron both arms, and bit her dog
on his paw. One wound required three stitches. She indicated she had on winter clothes and a long
winter coat, otherwise the wounds would have been much worse. She indicated blood was coming
through her coat sleeves. Ms. Chinnis indicated she was screaming and the man had to pull the dogs
off her. After the dogs were leashed, she indicated the man began to leave the beach When she asked
him his name, he did not answer her, and, finally, she screamed for him to at least tell her if his dogs
had been vaccinated, to which he replied they had been vaccinated. At this time, Ms. Chinnis
explained, neighbors stopped the man and obtained his name and address.
(~ Suzanne Green asked Ms. Chinnis who was the owner of the dogs, to which Ms. Chinnis replied the
owner was Champ Kaufmann. Ms. Green asked Ms. Chinnis if Mr. Kaufmann was present in the
audience, to which Ms. Chinnis indicated she was only able to see the back of his body at the time
(~`
Minutes, Code Enforcement Board
Special Meeting of January 30, 1996
Page 3
of the attack, and thus did not see his face. It was determined Mr. Kaufmann was in fact present in
the audience.
Ms. Green asked Ms. Chinnis if Mr. Kaufmann had paid her medical bills, to which Ms. Chinnis
replied Mr. Kaufmann paid some bills but not all the bills.
Mr. Wdlis asked Ms. Chinnis if the dogs were trying to go after her dog, to which Ms. Chinnis replied
she did not know but that she was bitten three times and her dog was bitten one time.
Mr. Willis asked Ms. Chinnis if, when she was screaming, was Mr. Kaufmann walking away, to
which Ms. Chinnis replied Mr. Kaufmann was dragging the dogs away. Ms. Chinnis indicated Mr.
Kaufmann did not give his name to the first witness but that he gave his name to the second witness.
It was determined the dogs were in the city limits of Atlantic Beach and that the dogs were not on
a leash.
~ BeeJay Lester, Animal Control Officer, City of Atlantic Beach, explained she was not able to cite
Mr. Kaufmann for not having the dogs on a leash because she did not actually see the dogs unleashed,
but that she had already previously told him to get a tag because she thought Mr. Kaufmann lived on
6th Street. She cited Mr. Kaufmann for having no dog tag and for a dog bite. She indicated she
called Shoreline Veterinarian and was told the dogs were up to date on getting their rabbis shots. She
also explained the dogs were placed in quarantine at Shoreline.
Ms. Lester explained she had previously had custody of Mr. Kaufmann's male dog on a separate
occasion. She indicated neighbors of Mr. Kaufinann's mother on 6th Street in Atlantic Beach found
a pit bull dog and tied the male dog in their yard, and then proceeded to call the Animal Control
Officer to pick up the dog. She indicated shortly after she picked up the dog and placed it in custody,
Mr. Kaufmann and his mother came to get the dog and at that time Mr. Kaufmann bought a dog tag.
At that time, Ms. Lester indicated, she told Mr. Kaufmann that he needed to get a tag for the other
female dog.
Mr. Willis asked Ms. Lester if recently she had noticed Mr. Kaufmann in his car with the male dog
and if she pet the dog, to which Ms. Lester replied in the affirmative. Mr. Willis asked if the dog bit
her to which Ms. Lester indicated the dog did not bite her because the owner was with the dog, and
that at the time she had no other dog in her arms.
Mr. Wdlis asked Ms. Lester if when she cited Mr. Kaufmann she told him if he did not appeal to the
Code Enforcement Board his dog would be declared dangerous, to which Ms. Lester indicated she
~, was sure she told Mr. Kaufmann that he had a right to appeal.
r`
Minutes, Code Enforcement Board
Special Meeting of January 30, 1996
Page 4
Sally li. Vermillion, 701 Beach Avenue #204, indicated her husband who was also a witness was
not able to attend the meeting. She indicated her husband had followed Mr. Kaufmann in his van and
that when he indicated to Mr. Kaufmann that he knew where he lived, Mr. Kaufmann indicated he
would tell him where he lived. Mr. Kaufmann indicated to Mr. Vermillion that he was taking care
of the dogs for someone else and that they were not his dogs. Ms. Vermillion indicated she saw the
dogs attack Ms. Chinnis. She indicated Ms. Chinnis was screaming and begging Mr. Kaufmann to
tell her if the dogs had their shots. Ms. Vermillion indicated she had seen the same dogs running
unleashed on other days, and specifically on December 2S, 1995.
Mr. Willis indicated he and Mr. Kaufmann came to the meeting to try to do the right thing. He
indicated it was their view that the board had no jurisdiction over this matter. Fie indicated the city
had jurisdiction over the day the attack occurred, only, but it was quite another matter for the board
to assume jurisdiction beyond the temtorial limits of Atlantic IIeach to declare the dog vicious or
dangerous. He indicated the female dog was "animal aggressive" and had been destroyed, and that
the remaining animal had never been involved in a similar situation. He indicated the female dog led
the male dog toward the small dog belonging to Ms. Chinnis. He urged the board to endorse the
~ agreement sponsored by the Prosecuting Attorney and himself.
Board members indicated the following comments:
...that the board would be remiss if it did not bring action, as the dog would still be able to do the
same thing in another Community, and perhaps grab someone by the throat with temble results .
...that Atlantic Beach did in fact have a right to bring action against the dog since the attack occurred
in the city of Atlantic Beach.
...that if the victim had been a child an entirely different situation would have occurred which could
have a tragic outcome.
...that the evidence was clear that Mr. Kaufmann did not act appropriately following the attack.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed to find Jule Champ Kaufmann, 809 11th Avenue
South, Jacksonville Beach, to be in violation of Section 4-28 of the Atlantic Beach Code and
Florida State Statute 767.12, and Mr. Champ's dog, a male American Pit Bulldog named Kaya
was found to be vicious and dangerous pursuant to Section 4-28 of the Atlantic Beach Code
and Florida State Statute 767.12 (attached hereto and made a part hereof).
Under discussion, Mr. 1\fartin indicated he would ensure that the City of Jacksonville Beach was
notified of the results of the board's decision. Ms. Lester indicated she had notified the Animal
Control Officer in the City of Jacksonville.
The Board indicated its desire to place a fine against Mr. Kaufmann, but Alan Jensen, City Attorney,
r. explained it was not possble for the board to levy a fine at this hearing, as the matter under discussion
was to declare the dog dangerous and vicious, only.
r`
Minutes, Code Enforcement Board
Special Meeting of January 30, 1996
Page 5
Since there was no further business to discuss Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
G. E. Martin
Chairman, Code Enforcement Board
ATTEST:
Trudy Lopanik
Secretary
x h, b,~ f ~
J~3~>~9G ~d ra~~~
crlROn'oLOCV or evFrrTs
subject:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Case No. 0102
Jule "Champ" Kaufmann
Code Enforcement Board Members
Karl Grunewald, Code Enforcement Officer
Declaration of Dangerous Dog
On December 27, 1996 at approximately 7:20 a. m. Mrs. Betty Chinnis reported to the Atlantic
Beach Police Department that she had been attacked by two Pit Bull dogs while she was walking
her own dogs on the beach in the City of Atlantic Beach. (Please refer to the attached Police
Incident Report).
On this date the Animal Control Ofitcer of Atlantic Beach issued a citation to the dog owner, Jule
"Champ" Kaufmann for failure to have an Atlantic Beach dog tag and for a dog bite. (See
attached citation).
Both dogs were placed in quarantine at a veterinary facility for observation. Following an attack
on another dog while quarantined the female dog was euthanized. The male dog continued to
be quarantine at the residence of the owner.
On January 2, 1996 Mr. Kaufmann was notified by the Animal Control Officer that both dogs
were being declared "dangerous" under Fl S.S. 767 and Atlantic Beach Code 4-28, "Vicious
Dog." (See attached letter).
On January 2, 1996 sworn statements were taken from Betty Chinnis, the complainant, and Sally
Vermillion, Charles Vermillion, and Lauren Am, witnesses to the incident (sworn statements
attached).
On January 8, 1996 Mr. Kaufmann submitted a written appeal of the dangerous dog declaration
as provided for in FL SS Supplement 767.12(c). (Attached)
An appeal date was set for January 30, 1996.
On January 8, 1996 Betry Chinnis appeared before the City Commission. Her statement is
attached herewith. Please note that she received continued medical attention at Beaches Baptist
Hospital.
(1
Page 2
Jules "Champ" Kaufmann
We recommend the following:
...that the dog be continued to be classified as "dangerous" under FL SS 767 and "vicious"
under Atl. Bch Code 4-28, and that the requirements of 767.12 be required of the owner.
...that since the owner resides in Jacksonville Beach that proper notification be given to that
jurisdiction.
...that should the dog be found in the City of Atlantic Beach in violation of any of its animal
~"`, ordinances, an immediate find of $250.00 per day will be levied against the owner of the dog.
(~`
CHAPTER 767
DAMAGE OY DOGS
767.01 Oog owner's liability for damages to persons or
domestic animals.
767,02 Sheep-killing dogs not to roam about.
767,03 Good defense for killing dog.
767,04 Dog owner's liability for damages to persons
bitten.
767.05 Dog owner's liability for damages by dog That
kills, wounds, or harasses dairy cattle.
767,07 Interpretation.
767,10 Legislative findings.
767.11 Oelinitions.
767,12 Classification of dogs as dangerous; certifica•
lion of registration; notice requirements; con-
finement of animal; exemption; appeals;
unlawlul acts.
767,13 Attack or bite by dangerous dog; penalties;
confiscation; destruction.
767.14 Additional local restrictions authorized.
767.15 Other provisions of chapter 767 not super-
seded.
767,76 Bite by a police or service dog; exemption from
quarantine.
.67.01 Oog owner's liability for damages to per-
ons or domestic animals.-Owners of dogs shall be
liable for any damage done by their dogs to sheep or
other domestic animals or livestock, to o! rs~n~
rcnay.-RS 23rr; cn. X979.1901; GS 3U2 RG5 X957; CGL 70s<,
767.02 Sheep-killing dogs not to roam about.-It is
unlawful for any dog known to have killed sheep to roam
about over the country unattended by a keeper. Any
such dog found roaming over the country unattended
shah be deemed arun-about dog, and it is lawful to kill
such dog.
W Hory.-s. t, en, N85. 1893: GS 3u3; RGS X958. CGL 7075
767.03 Good def ense for killing dog.-In any action
for damages or of a criminal prosecution against any
Person for killing or injuring a dog, satisfactory proof that
said dog had been or was killing cattle or sheep shall
constitute a good defense to either of such actions.
taHOry.-s. t, cn, X978, 1901: GS 3ru; RGS X959: CGL 7016: >;. t, M. 79-375
767.04 Dog owner's liability for damages to per-
ons bitten.-The owner of any dog that bites any per•
son while such person is on or in a public place, or law•
fully on or in a private place, including the property of the
owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by per•
r"ns bitten, regardless of the lormer viciousness of the
-g or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness.
However, any negligence on the part of the person bit-
ten (hat is a proximate cause of the biting incident
reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the per-
centage That the bitten person's negligence contributed
to the biting incident. A person is lawfully upon private
otoperfy of such owner within the meaning of this act
when he is on such property upon invitation, expressed
or implied, of the owner. However, the owner is not lia-
ble, except as to a person under the age of 6, or unless
the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act
or omission of the owner, if al the time of any such injury
the owner had displayed in a prominent place on his
premises a sign easily readable including the words
'bad Dog' The remedy provided by this section is in
addition to and cumulative with any other remedy pro-
vided by statute or common law.
H1~tory.-c. t, Nt. 25709, t9a9, s. r, M.93-13
767.05 Dog owner's liability for damages by dog
that kilts, wounds, or harasses dairy cattle.-An owner
or keeper of any dog that kills, wounds, or harasses any
dairy cattle shall be jointly and severally liable to the
owner of such dairy cat tie for all damages done by such
dog; and it is not necessary to prove notice to or knowl•
edge by any such owner or keeper of such dcg that the
dog was mischievous or disposed to kill or worry any
dairy cattle.
History.-s. 2. tn. )9Jt5, c. X82, cn. Bt-259.
767.07 Interpretation.-Section 767.05 is supple-
mental to all other laws relating to dogs not expressly
referred to therein and shall not be construed to modify,
repeal, or in any way affect any part or provision of any
such laws not expressly repealed therein or to prevent
municipalities from prohibiting, licensing, or regulating
the running at large of dogs within their respective limits
by law or ordinance now or herealter provided.
History.-s 2, M. 79-375.
767.10 Legislative findings.-The Legislature finds
hat dangerous dogs are an increasingly serious and
widespread threat to the safety and welfare of the peo•
pie of this state because of unprovoked attacks which
cause injury to persons and domestic animals; that such
attacks are in part attributable to the failure of owners
to confine and properly train and control their dogs; that
existing laws inadequately address this growing prob-
lem; and that it is appropriate and necessary to impose
uniform requirements for the owners of dangerous dogs.
History: s. 1, ch. 90-180.
767.11 Definitions.-As used in this act, unless the
onlext clearly requires otherwise:
~'-(1) 'Dangerous dog' means any dog that according
( the records of the appropriate authority:
(a) Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endan-
gered orhas inflicted severe injury on a human being on
public or private property;
(b) Has more Than once severely injured or killed a
domestic animal while off the owner's property;
(c) Has been used primarily or in part for the pur-
pose of dog fighting or is a dog trained for dog lighting;
or
(d) Has, when unprovoked, chased or approached
, 4.n ntrnnln oi.in,,,~IL.- nr nn., nnhrn
;~ statement by one or more persons and dutifully
nv~aligated by the appropriate authority.
(2) 'Unprovoked' means that the victim who has
oeen conducting himself peacefully and lawfully has
peen bitten or chased in a menacing fashion or attacked
oy a dog.
(3) 'Severe injury' means any physical injury that
•esults in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lac-
srations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery.
(4) 'Proper enclosure of a dangerous dog' means,
Nhile on the owner's property, a dangerous dog is
securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and
ocked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the entry of
young children and designed to prevent the animal from
~sCaping. Such pen or structure shall have secure sides
and a secure top to prevent the dog from escaping over,
ender, or through the structure and shalt also provide
xotection from the elements.
(S) 'Animal control authority' means an entity acting
alone or in concert with other local governmental units
and authorized by them to enforce the animal Control
aws o1 the city, county, or state. In those areas not
served by an animal control authority, the sheriff shalt
:arty out the duties of the animal control authority under
his act.
(6) 'Animal control officer' means any individual
ar!'`~yed, contracted with, or appointed by the animal
:o~.,,ol authority forlhe purpose of aiding in the enforce•
Went of this act or any other law or ordinance relating to
he Iicensure o1 animals, control of animals, or seizure
:nd impoundment o1 animals and includes any state or
xzl law enforcement officer or other employee whose
fulies in whole or in part include assignments Thal
evolve the seizure and impoundment of any animal.
(7) 'Owner' means any person, firm, corporation, or
rrganization possessing, harboring, keeping, or having
:ontrol or custody of an animal or, if the animal is owned
~y a person under the age of 18, that person's parent
~r guardian.
Muray.-: z. rn. so- reo. s. Z. cn. a-r-ra.
lion of his appeal. Each applicable local governing
authority must establish appeal procedures that con.
loan to this paragraph.
(2) Within 30 days of ter a dog has been classified as
angerous, the owner of the dog must obtain a cerliti-
cate of registration for the dog from the animal control
authority serving the area in which he resides, and the
certificate shalt be renewed annually. Animal control
authorities are authorized to issue such certificates of
registration, and renewals thereof, only to persons who
are at Least 18 years of age and who present to the ani-
mal control authority sufficient evidence ot:
(a) A current certificate of rabies vaccination for the
dog.
(b) A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog
and the posting of the premises with a clearly visible
warning sign al all entry points that informs both children
and adults o1 the presence of a dangerous dog on the
property.
(c) Permanent identification of the dog, such as a
tattoo on the inside thigh or electronic implantation.
The appropriate governmental unit may impose an
annual tee for the issuance of certificates of registration
required by this section.
(3) The owner shall immediately notify the appropri•
ate animal control authority when a dog that has been
classified as dangerous:
(a) Is Loose or unconfined.
(b) Has bitten a human being or attacked another
animal,
(c) Is sold, given av+ay, or dies.
(d) Is moved to another address.
Prior to a dangerous dog being sold or given away, the
owner shall provide the name, address, and telephone
number of the new owner to the animal control authority.
The new owner must comply with alt of the requirements
of this act and implementing local ordinances, even it
the animal is moved from one local jurisdiction to
another within the state. The animal control officer must
767.12 Classification ofdogs asdangerous; certifi- be notified by the owner of a dog classified as danger-
:ation of registration; notice requirements; confine- ous that the dog is in his jurisdiction.
Went of animal; exemption; appeals; unlawful acts.- ~(4) It is unlawful for the owner of a dangerous dog
(1)(a) An animal control authority shall investigate to permit the dog to be outside a proper enclosure
eporfed incidents involving any dog That may be dan- unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substam
serous and shall interview the owner and require a fiat chain or leash and under control of a competent per-
worn affidavit from any person, including any animal son. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will not
.ontrol officer or enforcement officer, desiring to have a cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or res-
log classified as dangerous. Alter the investigation, the piration but will prevent it from biting any person or ani-
nimat control authority shall determine i1 a dog is to be mat. The owner may exercise the dog in a securely
.lassilied as dangerous and shall immediately provide fenced or enclosed area that does not have a lop, wilh•
vr+`^n notification by registered mail or certified hand out a muzzle or leash, ii the dog remains within his sight
!e..~ry to the owner of a dog Thal has been classified and only members of his immediate household or per•
.s dangerous. A dog shall not be declared dangerous sons 18 years o1 age or older are allowed in the enclo-
the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a per• sure when the dog is present.lNhen being transported,
on who, at the time, was unlawfully on the property or, such dogs must be safely and securely restrained within
rhile tavrtully on the properly, was tormenting, abusing, a vehicle.
r assaull~ng the dog or its owner. (5) Hunting dogs are exempt from the provisions of
(b) The owner may 1de a written request for a hearing this act when enoaged in any legal hunt or training pro•
i anneal rhn rN~cY'rM'nn a%lhin 1n hu¢inrce rravC a1tPr Cedure Oo~~ rnoaoed in training or exhibiting in legal
F.S. 1993
exempt from the provisions o! this act when engaged in
any legal procedures. However, such dogs at all other
limes in all other respects shall be subject to this and
local laws. Dogs that have been classified as dangerous
shall not be used for hunting purposes.
(6) This section does not apply to dogs used bylaw
enforcement officials for law enforcement work.
(7) Any person who violates any provision of this
section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable
by a fine not exceeding $500.
H4TOry•-•. 3, m. 93-Teo.:. 3. M. s3-Ta
767.13 Attack or bite by dangerous dog; penalties;
ontiscation; destruction.- ~
~(1) If a dog that has^oreviously been declared'dan-
emus attacks or bites a person or a domestic animal
without provocation, the owner is guilty of a misde-
meanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.()82 or s. 775.083. In addition, the dangerous dog
shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control
authority, placed in quarantine, if necessary, for the
proper length of time, or impounded and held for 10
business days after the owner is given written notifica•
lion under s. 767.12, and thereafter destroyed in an
expeditious and humane manner. This 10-day time
~riod shall allow the owner to request a hearing under
~. 767.12(1)(b). The owner shaft be responsible for pay-
ment of all boarding costs and other fees as may be
required to humanely and safely keep•the animal during
any appeal procedure.
(2)~tlf a doq that has not been declared dangerous ~
attacks and causes severe injury to or death of any
human, and the owner of the dog had prior knowledge
of the dog's dangerous propensities yet demonstrated
a reckless disregard of such propensities under the cir•
cumstances, the owner of the dog is guilty of a misde-
meanor of the second degree, punishable as provided
in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. In addition, the dog shall be
immediately confiscated by an animal control authority,
placed in quarantine, if necessary, for the proper length
of time or held for 10 business days after the owner is
given written notification under s. 767,12, and thereafter
destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner. This
t0~ay time period shall allow the owner to request a
hearing under s. 767.12(1)(b). The owner shall be
responsible for payment of all boarding costs and other
fees as may be required to humanely and safely keep
the animal during any appeal procedure.
o T uvua _ _,,,
(3) If a doQ dial has previously been declared dan•
gerous attacks and causes severe injury to or death of
any human, the owner is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the dog shat) be
immediately confiscated by an animal control authority,
placed in quarantine, ii necessary, for the proper length
of time or held for 10 business days after the owner is
given written notification under s. 767.12, and thereafter
destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner. This
10-day time period shall allow the owner to request a
hearing under s. 767.12(1)(b). The owner shall be
responsible for payment of all boarding costs and other
fees as may be required to humanely and safely keep
the animal during any appeal procedure.
(4) I1 the owner files a written appeal under s.
767.12(1)(b), the dog must be held and may not be
destroyed while the appeal is pending.
(5) If a dog attacks or bites a person who is engaged
in or attempting to engage in a criminal activity at the
time of the attack, the owner is not guilty of any crime
specified under this section.
History.-s. ~, U. 90-180; s. L M. 97-T3.
767.14 Additional local restrictions authorized.-
Nothing in this act shall limit any local government from
placing further restrictions or additional requirements on
owners of dangerous dogs or develooino procedures
and criteria for the implementation of this act, provided
that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the
provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional
regulations or requirements. This section shalt not apply
to any local ordinance adopted prior to October 1,1990.
Hblory.-s. 5, U+. 90-100.
767.15 Other provisions of chapter 767 not super-
seded.-Nothing in this act shall supersede chapter
767, Florida Statutes 1989.
History.-s. 6, tn. 90-180
767.16 Bite by a police or service dog; exemption
from quarantine.-Any dog that is owned, or the service
01 which is employed, by a law enforcement agency, or
any dog Ihat is used as a service dog for blind, hearing
impaired, or disabled persons, and that bites another
animal or human is exempt from any quarantine require-
ment following such bile ii the dog has a current rabies
vaccination that was administered by a licensed veteri-
narian.
History.-s /, cn.91-228,
f
(~
ANID4AIS § 4.29
(b) If any dog or cat shall wander ar stray upon the property of any person within the
corporate limits of the city and shall cause damage thereon, proof of the damage and the
identity of the dog or cat shall be sufficient to convict the person owning or having charge of
ar control oC the dog or cat violating the terms and provisions of this article.
(c) If any dog or cat shah defecate on or cause damage to any of the public streets, parks,
playgrounds, alleys, or beaches in the city, the owner of said dog or cat shall be subject to the
penalties of this article unless such defecation or damage is immediate]y removed. Dog owners/
handlers shall carry some sort oCmaterial or utensil in all cases where their animals are being
walked on the beach in Atlantic Beach and shat) be require3 to remove from the beach (not
bury) any and all defecation taking place. This provision shall also apply to dog owners whose
dogs defecate on people's lawns, on the street ends to the beach, in the public parks, and public
rightsoC way.
(d) Anyone who takes an animal on the beach must have an Atlantic Beach tag.
(Code 1970, § 4rf(d); Ord. No. 95.86.30, § 3, ?•28•SG; Ord. No. 95-88-33, § 5, 4.25-SS)
State law re[crcnce-Damage by dogs, F.S. Ch. 767.
r Sco. 4.27. Disturbing the peace.
IE shall be unlawful for any person, whether owner, or anyone having charge, custody or
control thereof, to keep any dogs ar cats within the limits oC the city which bark or howl so as
to disturb the sleep or peace and quietude of any inhabitants of Lhe city unless otherwise
provided by state law.
(Code 1970, § 4-4(e))
~Sca 4-28. ~ciousdogs.
It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of any vicious dog to permit such dog to run
at large or without the enclosure oC the owner or keeper thereof within the corporate limits of
the city without being properly muuled. Any dog known to have bitten any person is hereby
defined as a "vicious dog" but the term vicious doh' shall not be limited to only those dogs who
are known to have bitten any person.
(Code 1970, § 4.5(d))
Sec. 9.29. Rabies suspected.
(a) If a dog or cat is suspected of having rabies, or has been bitten by a dog or cat suspected
of having rabies, such dog or cat shall be confined by a chain on the owner's premises and the
humane society or licensed veterinazian notiried at once. The dog or cat shall then be removed
to the proper place Cor obsen•ation for a period of ttvo (2) weeks at the expense of the owner.
~ (b) If any person is scratched or bitten by a dog or cat within the corporate limits oC the
city then it shall become the duty oCthe person or the owner oCthe dog or cat with knowledge
thereof, to report the incident to the police department within twenty-four (24) hours there-
after.
Supp. No. 12 303
r"
§ 4-29 ATLANTIC 13EACli CODE
(c) Any animal reported to have bitten a person shall be kept in quarantine for such
period oC time and place as may be designated by the city manager for the purpose of testing
the dog for disease. Any animal suspectzd oCbeing infected with rabies shall be released by its
owner or custodian to the city manager Cor laboratory analysis by a licensed veterinarian. No
liability for compensation to the owner oC the animal shall attach to the city by virtue of any
procedure in this article by the city manager. All costs in connection with this section shall be
borne by the owner oC the animal.
(Code 1970, § 4.5)
State law refemnce-Authority of state department of health and rehabilitative services
to adopt rules regulating quazantine or destruction oC domestic pets or wild animals infected
with rabies, F.S. § 381.031(i)(g)i.
Sea 430. Citations authorized; penalties provided.
(a) The city animal control officer or his designee as approved by the city manager shall
have the authority to issue citations to those people whose pets are found to be in violation of
this article and sections herein.
(b) Violations of this article shall be punishable by Cores as follows: Twenty-five dollars
~' ($25.00) for the first offense, forty dollars ($40.00) far the second offense, and seventy-five
dollars ($75.00) for the third and subsequent offenses each and every occasion wherein a
citation is issued.
~ (Ord. No. 9T-8630, § 4, 7-2&86)
(The next page is 353)
s~~~. No. ~2 304
s. 767.13 1994 SUPPLEMENT.TO.F1DRlDAsTATUTES 1991
1
1
CHAPTER 767
DAMAGE OY OOGS
767.Ot Dog owner's kabikty to damages to persons,
domestic arnmals, or livestock.
767.03 Good tlelense for killing dog.
767.12 Classdldation of dogs as dangerous: certdlca-
tlon o1 registration; notice and hearing
requirements; confinement of animal;
exemption; appeals; unlawful acts.
767.13 Attack or bite by dangerous dog; penalties;
confiscation; deslrucllon.
767.01 Dog owner's liability for damages to per-
sons, domesdcanimals, or livestock.-Owners of dogs
shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to a
person or to any animal included in the delinitions of
'domestic animal' and 'livestock' as provided by s.
585.01.
Wa1ory.-a15 bat; tr. a979. 1901; Gs 31a2, PGs .957, C0. 70u, a 1, M
wsa.
767.03 Good defense for killing dog.-In any action
far damages or of a criminal prosecution against any
person for kiting or injuring a dog, satisfactory proof Thal
said dog had been or was killing any animal included in
the delinitions of 'domestic animal' and Yivestock' as
provided by s. 585.01 shalt eonshwte a good defense to
either of such actions.
Nnbry.-s 1, dt A91B. r90r. G$ Sta.. PG$ .959, CGL 70a8. a 1. cn A•SIS.
. z.cn awe
767.12 Classification of dogs as dangerous; certifi-
eatlon of registration; notice and hearing require-
ments; eonllnement of animal; ezemption; appeals;
unlawful acts.-
(1xa) An animal control authority shall investigate
reported incidents involving any dog that may be dan-
gerous and shall, i1 possible, interview the owner and
require a sworn affidavit from any person, including any
animal control otiicer or enforcement ollicer, desiring to
have a dog classified as dangerous. Any animal that is
the subject of a dangerous dog investigatwn, that is not
impounded with the animal contrd authority, shall be
humanelyand safely confined by the owner in a securely
fenced or enclosed area pending the outcome of the
investigation end resolution of any hearings related to
the dangerous dog classification. The address of where
the animal resides shall be provided to the animal con•
trot authority. fVO dog that is the subject of a dangerous
dog investigation may be relocated or ownership trans-
ferred pendng the outcome of an investigation or arty
hearings related to the determination of a dangerous
dog classification. In the event that a dog is to be
destroyed, the dog shall not be relocated or ownership
transferred.
(b) A dog shall not be declared dangerous it the
threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person
who, at the time, was unlawfully on the property or, while
lawfully on the property, was tormenting, abusing, or
assautung the dog or its owner a a family member. No
dog may be declared dangerous it the dog was prolect~
ing or defending a human being within the immediate
vicinity of the dog Irom an unjustified attack or assault.
(c) A11er the investigation, the animal Control author
ity shall make an initial determination as towhether there
is sufficient Cause to classify the dog as dangerous and
shall allord the owner an opportunity for a hearing prior
10 making a final determination. The animal control
authority shall provide written noldication of the sulk
cient cause finding, to the owner, by registered mall
eertdiod hand delivery, or service in conformance wiw
ttie provisions of chapter 48 relating to service of proc•
css. The owner may Isle a written request for a hearing
within 7 calendar days from the date of receipt of the
notilicalion of the sufticient cause lording and, it
requested, the hearing shat) be held as soon as possi•
ble, but not more than 21 eateMar days and no sooner
than 5 days alter receipt of the request Irom the owner.
Each applicable local governing authority shall establish
hearing procedures that conform to this paragraph.
(d) Once a dog is classified as a dangerous dog, the
animal control authority shall provide written notihcalwn
to the owner by registered mail, cerlilled hand delivery
or service, and the owner may file a written request for
a hearing in the county court to appeal the ctassitiration
within 10 business days alter receipt of a written deler•
minallon of dangerous dog classification and must con•
floe the dog in a securely fenced or enclosed area pend-
ing aresolution of the appeal. Each applicable local gov-
erning authority must establish appeal procedures that
conform to this paragraph.
(2) Within 14 days alter a dog has been ctassilled as
dangerous by the animal control authority or 8 danger•
ous dog classification is upheld by the county court on
appeal, the owner of the dog must obtain a Certdicate
of registration for the dog kom the animal control autha-
ityserving the area in which he resides, and the certifi-
cate shall be renewed annually. Animal control authori-
ties are authorized to issue such certillcales of registra-
tion, and renewals thereof, only to persons who are at
least 18 years of age and who present to the animal con-
Ird aulhonty sufficient evidence of.
(a) A current cerllllcate of rabies vaccination for the
dog.
(b) A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog
and the posting of the premises with a clearly visible
warning sign at all entry points that informs both chil-
drenand adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on
the properly.
(c) Permanent identification of the dog, such as a
tattoo on the inside thigh or electronic implantation.
The appropriate governmental unit may impose an
annual 1CC t01 1hC IsSUance Of CCrtitlCales Of feg41raU0n
required by this section.
(3) The owner shall immediately notify the appropri-
ate animal control authority when a dog that has been
elassllied as dangerous:
(a) Is Loose or unconllned.
(b) Has bitten a human being or attacked another
animal.
(c) Is sold, given away, or dies.
(d) Is moved to another address.
Prior to a dangerous dog being sold or given away, the
owner shalt provide the name, address, and telephone
number of the new owner to the animal conlyd authority.
The new owner must comply with as of the requirements
of this act and implementing local ordinances, even it
the animal is moved Irom one local jurisdiction to
another within the slate. The animal contrd ollicer must
be notilled by the owner of a dog ctassilled as danger-
ous that the dog is in his jurisdiction.
t
7
(4) It is unlawful for the owner of a dangerous dog
to permit the dog to be outside a proper enclosure
unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substan~
fiat chain or leash and under control of a wmpetent per-
son. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will not
cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or res-
piration but will prevent it from biting any person or ani-
mal. The owner may exercise the dog in a securely
fenced or enclosed area that does not have a top, with-
out amuzzle or (Cash, it the dog remains within his sight
and only members of his immediate household a per
sons 18 years o1 age or older are allowed in the enclo•
sure when the dog is present. When being transported.
such dogs must be safely and securely restrained wnthin
a vehicle.
(5) Hunting dogs are exempt from the provisions of
this act when engaged in any legal hunt or training pro-
cedure. Dogs engaged in training or exhibiting rn legal
sports such as obedience trials, conformation shows.
field trials, hunting/retrieving trials, and herding trials are
exempt Irom the provisions of Ihis act when engaged in
any legal procedures. However, such dogs at all other
times in all other respects shall be subject to this and
local laws. Dogs that have been classified as dangerous
shall not be used for hunting purposes.
(6) This section does not apply to dogs used by law
enlacement officials for law enforcement work.
(7) Any person who violates any provision of this
section Is guilty of a nenGriminal infraction, punishable
by a fine rat exceeding $500.
waery.-s s in sareo. • a m v-u. • l a w-sn
767.13 Attack or bite by dangerous dog; penalties;
confiscation; destruction.-
(1) If a dog Ihat has previously been decared dan-
gerous attacks or bites a person or a domestic animal
without provocation, the owner is guilty of a mrsde~
meanor o11he first degree, punishable as provided in s
775.002 or s. 775.083. In addition, the dangerous dog
shall be immediately contiscated by an animal control
authority, placed in quarantine, if necessary, for the
proper length of hmc, or impounded and held for 10
business days alter the owner is given written notil~ca~
Lion under s. 767.12, and thereafter destroyed in an
expeditious and humane manner. This 10-day time
period shall allow the owner to request a hearing under
s. 767.12. The owner shall be responsible for payment
of ell boarding costs and other fees as maybe requued
to humanely and solely keep the animal tluring any
appeal procedure.
(2) II a dog that has not been declared dangerous
attacks and causes severe injury to or death al any
human, the dog shall be immediately Confiscated by an
animal control authority, placed in quarantine, rf neces•
nary, for the proper length of lime or held for 10 business
days alter the owner is given written nolrticauon under
s. 767.12, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious
i and humane manner. Thrs 10-day time period shall auovr
the owner to request a hearing under s. 767.12. The
owner shall be responsible for payment of all boarding
costs and other fees as may be required to humanely
r and solely keep the animal during any appeal proce~
dure.ln addition, it the owner of the dog had prior knowl~
edge of the dog's dangerous propensrtics, yet demon-
strated areckless disregard for such propensities under
the circumstances, the owner of the dog is guilty of a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as pro-
v~ded in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) 11 a dog that has previously been declared dan-
gerous attacks and causes severe injury to or death of
any human, the owner is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the dog shall be
rmme0~ately Contiswted by an animal control authority,
placed in quarantine, it necessary, far the proper length
of trine ar held la 10 business days after the owner is
given written noutication under s. 767.12, and Iherealter
destroyed in an expeditrous and humane manner. This
10-day trine period shall allow the owner to request a
hearing under s. 767.12. The owner shall be responsible
for payment of all boarding costs and other fees as may
be requued to humanely and safely keep the animal dur-
ing any appeal procedure.
(4) tt the owner files a written appeal under s. 767.12
or tnrs section, the tlog must be held and may not be
destroyed while the appeal is pending.
(5) If a tlog attacks or bites a person who is engaged
in or attempting to engage in a criminal activity at the
ume of the attack, the owner is not guilty of any crime
sGecdred under this section.
emery.-• ~. rn 90nBe. • ~, cn 97-q. • ~. p, >H-aA