Laserfiche WebLink
the sources and probability of a risk and limited consideration of alternative <br /> policies.i6 <br /> Panic policymaking, however, is not inevitable. A knowledgeable advocate can <br /> marshal scientific evidence, economic-impact data, and negative practical <br /> outcomes that demonstrate why breed-discriminatory policies will fail to protect <br /> the public. <br /> For example, implementation is of little concern during the formulation of panic <br /> policies.'Because of the speed of passage and lack of attention to calculation, <br /> planning, and assessment, officials often fail to consider how the policy will be <br /> implemented. They thus fail to forecast the resources of personnel and money <br /> necessary to enforce the policy.8 <br /> This is true not only of breed bans but of any breed-discriminatory law. <br /> Policymakers often forget about the burden of proof— i.e., that they have the <br /> burden of proving that a dog is of a certain heritage.9 For criminal measures, the <br /> government must prove that the dog in question is of a certain heritage beyond a <br /> reasonable doubt. If there are civil penalties, the government has the burden of <br /> proving that the canine is of a certain heritage by a preponderance of the <br /> evidence. In the past, this might have been considered easily done merely by <br /> visual identification, but with the advent of scientific advances— namely, DNA <br /> testing—that is changing. <br /> Because of these advances in genetic testing, the traditional legal categorization <br /> of animals as property can actually be used to their benefit. Under the Fourteenth <br /> Amendment to the United States Constitution, "no person shall be deprived of <br /> life, liberty, or property without due process of the law."1° Four basic <br /> characteristics of breed-discriminatory laws are relevant to a constitutional <br /> challenge:11 (1) definition of the breed, (2) procedures for identifying and <br /> 6 Hunter and Brisbin supra,at 1-2. <br /> Martin Lodge,Barking Mad?Risk Regulation and the Control of Dangerous <br /> Dogs in Germany,German Politics,75-76(2001). <br /> 8 Hunter and Brisbin,supra,at 10. <br /> 9 City of Pierre v.Blackwell,635 N.W.2d 581,586(S.D.2001). <br /> 10 U.S.CONST.amend XIV. <br /> 11 <br /> A Lawyer's Guide to Dangerous Dog Issues 26(Joan E.Schaffner,ed.,2009). <br />