Court says there was no constitutional right to challenge dangerous dog designation, and dog was killed.
This case arose out of three biting incidents involving a dog owned by Respondent. After the first bite, the City of Lino Lakes designated Respondent’s dog as “potentially dangerous,” and after the second bite, the City designated the dog as “dangerous.” After the third bite, the City ordered the dog to be destroyed.
The court of appeals reversed the City’s decisions, holding that Appellant’s inability to challenge the “potentially dangerous” designation violated his right to procedural due process. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, upheld the City’s designation of the dog as “dangerous,” and affirmed the City’s order to destroy the dog, holding
(1) Respondent was not constitutionally entitled to a hearing to challenge the “potentially dangerous” designation; and
(2) substantial evidence supported the City’s decisions.