HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PWC 228 02/23/1988 1984-1988 REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: February 23 , 1988
PLACE : Councilroom
TIME: 1 :30 p.m .
Chairman and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Public Works to which was referred Communication
No . 1235 . 10 and its attached Bill No. 494, reports as follows:
Bill 494 proposes to amend Chapter 4, Article 1 , Section 4-1 (f ) of
the Hawaii County Code 1983 relating to definitions concerning
animals , specifically, vicious dog. The purpose of the bill is to
eliminate the "free first bite" interpretation of the present
definitions of vicious dog.
Your Committee on Public Works has reviewed Bill 494 and
Communication 1235 . 10 and understands that the bill refines the
definition of vicious dog and provides for written notice to the
owner of a dog deemed vicious of the following points:
1 . The dog is vicious ;
2. The owner must confine the dog;
3. The owner is subject to penalties if he does not confine the
dog; and
4. The owner may request a hearing for reconsideration of the
vicious designation within 30 days of the notice .
Your Committee heard testimony from Frederick Giannini , Deputy
Corporation Counsel , as follows:
1 . The bill reflects the Council ' s concern over the free first
bite .
2. The second sentence of the current definition of vicious dog
in Section 4-1 (f ) of the Hawaii County Code 1983, " If a dog
has bitten any person or animal , such a dog shall
thenceforth be deemed a vicious dog, " has been interpreted
to mean that until a dog bit someone, it wasn 't vicious .
3. The new definition of vicious dog in Section 4-1 (f ) gives
two criteria for a vicious dog, namely, placing a person or
other animal in imminent danger of bodily injury or having
bitten any person or animal . The exclusion from the vicious
definition for a dog that has been teased , tormented or
otherwise abused by the victim of the vicious behavior
remains the same as in the present law .
PWC REPORT 228
r DOPTED : MAR 2 3 1990
,
PWC-228 Page 2 February 23, 1988
4. The reason for including section 4-l (f ) ( 3) , the 30 day limit
to appeal the vicious designation, serves two purposes . It
gives the owner of a dog deemed vicious an opportunity for a
hearing for reconsideration and a possible repeal of the
vicious designation. It also forecloses a possible defense
in a future case where the owner might claim that his dog
should not have been deemed vicious at an earlier time .
5 . The Chief of Police can delegate his role as presiding
officer of a hearing on the vicious designation to a
district commander , a lieutenant or a sergeant . Even though
some people may see a conflict between enforcing and
arbitrating, the Chief of Police is named as the presiding
officer of the hearing because other department heads
preside over hearings for reconsideration . The Humane
Society, if responsible for presiding at hearings , would be
put in the position of second guessing its own employees .
Your Committee heard testimony from the Humane Society directors from
both East and West Hawaii . Ginger Towle of the West Hawaii Humane
Society stated that the bill is excellent and she applauds its
simplicity. Patrick Gorman of the Hawaii Island Humane Society
supported Bill 494 based on the fact that there can be no
misunderstanding the new definition and there is due process for the
dog owner .
Your Committee on Public Works recommends p-. ssage of Bill No . 494 on
first reading by the County Council .
AO
eAkilk
RLE K. LAI, CH: RWOMAN
I I. . 4Ilari10101444
USSELL S. KOKUBUN, VICE CHR. FRANK DE LUZ III, MEMBER
(14.4 is,s4'Apt •
TAKASHI DOMINGO, MEN ER SHERWOOD R. H. GREENWELL, MEMBER
LA/TW