Animals: Unleashing an Ordinance on Dogs

As a dog lover, civil libertarian and citizen of Rancho Palos Verdes for 35 years, I object to the ordinance [passed by the City Council May 2] that to me maligns dogs and violates constitutional due process.

The ordinance defines a “potentially dangerous” or vicious dog as any dog, when unprovoked, that engages in any behavior twice in 36 months that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner.

The due process of enforcing the ordinance is indeed troublesome when city officials with probable cause “shall have the authority to . . . seize and impound that dog--pending the hearing.”

Under the ordinance, the city manager or his appointed officials may enter and inspect private property to enforce this law. Apparently, Rancho Palos Verdes ignores the protection of search and seizure guarantees under the Constitution. What if the dog is later found not to be vicious? Like Alice in Wonderland, “First the hanging, then the trial.”

But even more extreme: “If such a dog cannot be safely taken and impounded, it may be slain forthwith by such officials.”

The entire ordinance seems like overkill, with few incidents to justify it. There are already laws that protect citizens against dangerous animals, and the spirit of the ordinance and the restrictions in it are not suited to the spirit of the community. ROBERT CIRIELLO Rancho Palos Verdes