Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California
The City of Hollister California requires all chihuahua owners to fix the dogs or to apply for an "unaltered dog certificate". In addition to the $75 fee, the certificate application requires owners to enter into a "legally binding" agreement between the dog owner and the city.
The text of the unaltered dog certificate reads: "In order to compy with the law, you must sign and date the legally binding statement on the reverse side of this paper, agreeing to all the following:"
One of the terms of the agreement is a premises check by a city animal control officer.
1. Is the certificate application requirement of entering into a legally binding contract constitutional? You must enter into a contract with the city or else risk criminal prosecution?
2. Is the premises check by the city animal control officer in violation of the 4th amendment. Does it not constitutie an unreasonable search?
1 Answer from Attorneys
You do not have to enter into the contract or risk prosecution for not entering into the contract. You have to enter into the contract or risk prosecution for not having your dog fixed. Cities have broad authority to control animals within city limits, including prohibiting possession of them if certain conditions are not met. So of course you can be prosecuted for violating animal control laws. It is just the same as the requirement that you insure your car and you can face criminal prosecution if you do not. The certificate contract gives you an out, by allowing you to violate the law if you agree to enter a contract with certain conditions. Just like if you are a large fleet owner, like say PG&E, you can elect to self-insure your vehicles if certain conditions are met. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that; it is just common sense.
As for the 4th Amendment issue, again, you are consenting to something you could not constitutionally be compelled to do, because you want to get out of complying with the law. A search by consent is never unconstitutional. If you do not want to consent, you are free to comply with the law and have your animals fixed, and then you can refuse to allow the premises check. You just can't have your cake and eat it too, by getting a waiver but not consenting to the premises checks.
The bottom line is that the only reason to have unaltered dogs is to breed them. The city has very legitimate interests in preventing "puppy mills" operating in their town, and other animal abuse issues that arise in breeding situations. By standing on 4th Amendment rights, unscrupulous breeders can make it very difficult for animal protection officers to protect breeder animals from abuse. The officers must have probable cause and get a warrant, just to check on the animals' welfare. So the city has a completely legitimate and constitutional solution: no breeding without a certificate, and if you want a certificate you waive your objections to our inspections. If you don't want to waive your constitutional rights, don't breed dogs, or do it outside our city limits.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Church disturbing the peace. Can anything be done? Los Angeles. Asked 8/14/11, 7:40 am in United States California Constitutional Law
-
Can a Peace officer order a husband/wife to not speak with their spouse? Asked 8/06/11, 5:18 pm in United States California Constitutional Law
-
I was called a CENSORED in my class. I am the only african american in my group Asked 7/20/11, 11:05 pm in United States California Constitutional Law
-
What time can consturction start in a residential area in Pittsburg, CA. Asked 7/19/11, 10:21 am in United States California Constitutional Law