Denver Attny: "Projecting who might sue us is something with some sensitivity around it"

Last night, by a 9-4 vote, the city of Denver elected to make no changes to it's 20 year old breed ban.  Even for Denver, who's council seems to be working very hard to ignore all of the data that has come to light over the past 20 years that indicates that breed bans are not an effective solution, this decision comes as a bit of a surprise.

Back in August, the Department of Justice issued a "final rule" on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  In the final rule, they were extremely clear that according to the ADA, service dogs had to be exempt from city breed bans.

"The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA...."

However, last night, Denver refused to change its breed ban to allow for service dogs. 

The change will no doubt lead to many more lawsuits against the city -- a city that has already incurred thousands of dollars in outside legal help, had at least one lawsuit settled out of court, and has several others pending.  Meanwhile, the city continues to face a $160 million budget deficit.

Now first off, let me state that the ADA is designed to allow people with disabilities the same rights and access as people without them. And for many, dogs can play a crucial role (for instance, many military veterans are using dogs to help them deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- which can be debilitating for veterans and part of the reason a staggering 18 veterans a DAY commit suicide).

The Department of Justice's final rule could not be more clear on the issue of service dogs -- and just like other civil rights issues in our nation's history, local officials DO NOT have the ability to trump federal law on these cases.

But Denver thinks they're special, apparently.

Councilman Charlie Brown (he's a clown, that Charlie Brown) urged his colleagues last night to not "roll over and play dead" and to stand up for their pit bull ban.  Brown, and others, have expressed concern that people will try to "game the system" and keep aggressive 'pit bulls' and claim they are service dogs when they are not -- even to the point of being concerned about "paraplegic drug dealers".  Uh huh.

Maybe the best quote of the night comes from Assistant Cit Attorney David Broadwell who declined to comment about the civil liability of the city in defying federal law:

"Projecting who might sue us, or how they might sue us, is something with some sensitivity around it."

In other words, we're going to get sued, it's just commenting about who and how is not a good legal decision - and man, is this going to suck for him. At least one local lawyer has already come forward speculating that there will be many more lawsuits against the city.

The taxpayers in Denver of course are going to have to foot the bill for this -- hopefully the voters of Denver will remove some of these council members from office in order who continue to make costly, irrational fear-based decisions that are costing dogs their lives, and people their civil rights under the ADA.

--------------------------------------

 Interestingly, yesterday there was a second story about Denver pets that is in many ways quite related.

Apparently, Denver animal control is concerned about the reality that a huge percentage of pets in Denver are not licensed.  According to their projections, there are roughly 150,000 dogs and 153,000 cats that reside in Denver (these numbers seem about right based on an estimated 239,000 households).  However, in 2009, only 18,892 pets had licenses -- which is roughly 6% of all pets).

Based on their $15 one year licensing fees ($40 for a 3-year license), the city estimates it is losing upwards of $4 million in licensing fees (which may be needed to pay all the new lawsuits) -- and the city is looking for ways to improve licensing.

Here's a hint:  if you want people to license their pets, you must do two things:

1) Offer a service -- Initiatives like offering a "free ride home" to licensed pets provides an insurance policy of sorts for pet owners -- and a service they receive for their payment. Programs like this have worked extremely well in other cities to get people to license their pets -- because they get something in return.  If Fido gets out, he comes home for free. It's a great deal, and a great service.

2) Be trustworthy -- many people don't license their pets because they are afraid that giving their information away will lead to it being used against them by animal control and they will be targeted by animal control for one reason or the other.  As long as you have a city government that is willing to deny people their civil rights of having certain types of service dogs under the ADA, then how are we to assume they will treat pets owned by people NOT under the ADA.  As long as you are out there trying to punish pet owners for owning well-behaved dogs, and as long as the media continues to show pictures of piles of dead dogs that are killed just because of how they look, people will not trust you and will actively not comply.

It's not that hard.  And yet, Denver is oh so far away from this.  It's actually almost amazing that a city that was not all that long ago seen as progressive seems to be so far away from it now.

 

Comments

[Marji]

Wow. I guess Denver can have pride in being the only city in the country that doesn't offer fair and equal opportunities to the "disabled" people in their community. By all accounts, it seems a service dog is a right, not a privilege, according to the stipulations set forth in the ADA. Denver doesn't think so.

[EmilyS]

unf'ingbelievable.

or sadly, NOT...

[kmk]

Denver City Motto: "We keep beating that dead horse, and beating that dead horse, and it still won't get up!"

[EmilyS]

http://www.theanimallawcenter.com/OurFirm/News/tabid/60/ID/39/Animal-Law-Center-Disappointed-In-Recent-Actions-Taken-By-The-City-Councils-Of-Denver-Aurora.aspx

Kmk: I am so stealing that!

[Joel]

Whenever I want to make my original home city of Cincinnati look intelligent with respect to animal legislation, it's important to keep Denver in mind.

[Mark Russell]

Way to go Denver. Hang tough.

[EmilyS]

you can see what we're up against here:
http://www.9news.com/video/default.aspx#/News/Pit+bull+ban+challenge/49906872001/50183015001/702396733001

Keep playing that "home rule" card, Charlie... all the way to the first judge who will laugh you out of court. Cause, see Charlie: "home rule" is about the STATE's constitution that give localities the right to ignore STATE laws. The FEDERAL laws, especially the rights-based ones, take precedence.

(can't say I'm impressed with "our" lawyer, though...)

[Tcourt5096]

Typical powertrip. Brown ought to be dismissed. His sabotaging his colleagues is a travesty. Bill Bruce of Calgary presented the solution to Denver.. as he implements it in his city, no fatalities, tougher dangerous dog laws and milking those who fail to comply. Denver ignores the evidence, studies and other cities' experience, that bans do not work. Brown's arrogance is a travesty to the rest with common sense.

[kmk]

Ah, EmilyS, the "horse" comment is my dad's, although I'm sure it's not original on his part!

Denver's persistence in keeping this ordinance, particularly in light of a DOJ policy regarding the ADA likens more to an obsession than a power trip. At this point it's safe to say it has nothing to do with protecting the public. All I can say is if this were happening where we live those idiots would have been out of City Hell a long time ago.

I was discussing this with someone the other day - Denver reminds me of another situation.

Question - what was the longest, most expensive trial in California history?

Answer - if you said O.J. Simpson, or the Manson Family, you would be wrong. In the 1980s the McMartin Day Care case was all over the news. It lasted 7 years and cost the California taxpayers about 18 million dollars in 1980s money (and I'm going off of memory there). The accusations were sensational in nature and included sex abuse, Devil worshipping, animal torture, chopping heads off of babies, and all sorts of horrible stuff. A reasonable person would even say the accusations were completely unbelievable.

Despite lack of evidence (unless you include manufactured evidence) prosecutors were obsessed with trying to convict three innocent people. To make matters worse, the "therapists" were talking to the national media about the "interrogation methods" (just made that term up) they used on the children, which resulted in even more innocent people and day care operators across the country being accused of child molestation. In a sense it was like pit bull attacks - hysteria tends to feed on itself, and the stories of Satan worshipping rituals and sexual abuse in day cares spread like wildfire through the media.

At some point the case was no longer about "what's good for the children" and justice. It was merely an obsession with the Los Angeles County's prosecutor's office. Robert Philobosian, the LA county district attorney, was in a battle for re-election in 1984, which he lost.

You can read the book or watch the most excellent movie with James Woods, "Indictment". The movie is a condensed version but sums it up pretty well. But it will scare you worse than any pit bull attack, and honestly, it scared me worse than "Helter Skelter" ever did.

[EmilyS]

good analogy, Kim: I was thinking more of Orval Faubus standing on the school steps with the national guard trying to keep out those scary black children

[rscheel]

Thanks.

[Brent]

Wow Emily. Charlie's interview on channel 9 is a little, eh, frightening that someone with a civic position could be so a) oblivious to federal law and b) so reliant on one incident 20 years ago as the sole basis for his 'logic'

[Verjean]

http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/297

Might want to check out this link. Service dogs cannot be discriminated against by breed, size, or weight, as of March 2011. Federal law was revised in July of 2010.

Not that it will have ANY effect on ignorance...but it will be federal law.

Yes, I'm always amazed the cities think that beating their citizens over the head with punitive measures, and draconian ordinance will "motivate" them to do the right thing.
Yeah...how did that "prohibition" thingie go?

[EmilyS]

yeah Brent, incredible stupidity (and willingness to be led by the nose by the vengeful Kory Nelson on the home rule theory).. Denver Kills Dogs has a link to the televised hearings and from the description, the city's attorney was pretty explicit about warning the council about its prospects in court

I was thinking my reply would have been along the lines of "yes those were horrible incidents. In the 20 years since then, Denver has displaced and discriminated against thousands of law-abiding residents. It's killed hundreds of thousands of harmless dogs for the crime of appearing to be a "pit bull". Is there some point when you've killed enough innocent dogs to feel you've gotten payback"?

or more rationally:
"yes those were horrible incidents. And yet in the 20 years since "pit bulls" were banned, Denver residents have suffered an INCREASING number of dogbites requiring hospitalization. Denver residents are LESS safe following your ban"

[Katie]

I'm not sure how, but the Animal Care and Control of my county found out I had an unregistered dog(I just hadn't gotten around to it yet, as I have 4 dogs). They sent me a notice and a fee and I took care of it. I think the vets have to report sterilizations or something every year and maybe that's how ACC found out. Either way, that should be how it's done. If you want people to register their pets, go through the vets. BTW: I think if the idiots in charge of Denver would pull their heads out of their a$$es they'd really enjoy life more. I have two Pits myself and you'd have to pry them from my dead grip to get them away from me.

[kmk]

Denver has been a "sanctuary city" for some time now, despite being in violation of Colorado state law, which prohibits sanctuary cities.

They are clearly not getting off of that "home rule" crazy train!

http://www.cairco.org/sanctuary/sanctuary.html

And Hickenlooper is now the Governor. They're in good hands now!

[Joel]

I was not overly impressed with the veteran's lawyer either. Perhaps she was trying to appeal to the public since she was in a TV interview and not a courtroom, but the fact that he served his country is immaterial.

The ADA's guidelines do not cover certain types of dogs. They do not cover most breeds. They do not cover 124 out of 125 breeds. They cover all dog who have achieved certification. Period.

Mr. Brown claims that this dog is a greater threat than other dogs, yet can show no evidence to affirm that policies based on this position has made his constituency safer. Additionally, pit-bull type dogs are allowed as service dogs everywhere else in the country. Where is the evidence that this specific group of dogs is creating any sort of heightened public danger?

I have no idea if Mr. Brown just enjoys playing the local tough guy, or if he is frightened that the minute any law is loosened his name will be attached to the first bite case involving a pit-bull type dog in Denver.

Denver, when can you vote this man out?

[kmk]

Kim's Government Postulates:

1. It's usually about the money, but not always.
2. It's NEVER really about "protecting the public".
3. It's definitely always about the control.

[EmilyS]

http://www.kdvr.com/videobeta/5fcc68af-7585-428a-bca3-45bbc3072582/News/Denver-to-fight-pit-bull-ban-changes

they are asking damages and Jennifer seems pretty sure she's going to kick Denver's ass...

If you're on FB: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wheat-Ridge-CO/The-Animal-Law-Center-LLC/318713332034

[Joel]

Jennifer was stronger in that segment than she was in the other video.

It's pretty clear stuff. If Mr. Brown wants to contest the process by which service dogs are certified that's fine, but that's a separate issue. Any dog that is currently certified as a service dog is exempt from any breed-specific laws. That's the only fact that matters here. Most second-graders could interpret this correctly.

[Cindy]

Alright you good citizens of Denver - if your city leaders are this stupid about this one issue (ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary on the breed ban issue), don't you wonder what other issues they can be this stupid about? If you are tired of paying taxes so the city can invite lawsuits as a result of violating federal law, stand up for yourselves and through the b*****ds out of office!