Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Dog Seizure By Police
My dog (Staffordshire bull terrier) got out a few months back and was hit by a car. I tracked him down to a local kennels where I collected him after his operation. I have since paid the kennels their holding fee, and paid the vets for the treatment provided. My ex girlfriend called me a few days back advising that the police (dangerous dog unit) had turned up at her house, where I used to live as they needed to see my dog and 'type' him. I have been away on holiday so couldn't contact them, but I have been told that they may put him to sleep if they believe him to be a dangerous dog #apparently this should have took place at the kennels before I collected him. My problem now is that they have returned to my previous address, and now my parents address which is on the same street looking for me and my dog. They have advised my ex and my parents that as I've not been in touch, they can return at any time with a warrant to seize my ex girlfriends dog, and my parents dogs. My question is, can they actually do this? I don't live at either property and my dog has never been there.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ste78. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Who lives where (or when) is irrelevant.
A dogs is a 'banned type' if it looks like any of the following breeds:
Pit Bull Terrier
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Braziliero
i.e. it doesn't actually have to be a Pit Bull Terrier to be a 'banned type'; simply looking like one is good enough evidence for legal action against you and the destruction of your dog. Further, if such action does occur, there's effectively a 'presumption of guilt' since the law states
"If in any proceedings it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 or an order under section 2 above applies it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused by such evidence as the court considers sufficient . . ."
The power to enter properties (with a warrant) to search for and confiscate banned dogs is written into the law as follows:
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under any provision of this Act or of an order under section 2 above is being or has been committed; or
(b)that evidence of the commission of any such offence is to be found,
on any premises he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter those premises (using such force as is reasonably necessary) and to search them and seize any dog or other thing found there which is evidence of the commission of such an offence"
Due to the 'presumption of guilt' I've referred to above, I strongly recommend getting a vet (or other expert) to certify (in writing) that your dog is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (or, at the very least, that it is not a 'banned type') as you may well need to produce such evidence (either to a police officer or to a court).
References:
http://
and
https:/
Chris
A dogs is a 'banned type' if it looks like any of the following breeds:
Pit Bull Terrier
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Braziliero
i.e. it doesn't actually have to be a Pit Bull Terrier to be a 'banned type'; simply looking like one is good enough evidence for legal action against you and the destruction of your dog. Further, if such action does occur, there's effectively a 'presumption of guilt' since the law states
"If in any proceedings it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 or an order under section 2 above applies it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused by such evidence as the court considers sufficient . . ."
The power to enter properties (with a warrant) to search for and confiscate banned dogs is written into the law as follows:
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under any provision of this Act or of an order under section 2 above is being or has been committed; or
(b)that evidence of the commission of any such offence is to be found,
on any premises he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter those premises (using such force as is reasonably necessary) and to search them and seize any dog or other thing found there which is evidence of the commission of such an offence"
Due to the 'presumption of guilt' I've referred to above, I strongly recommend getting a vet (or other expert) to certify (in writing) that your dog is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (or, at the very least, that it is not a 'banned type') as you may well need to produce such evidence (either to a police officer or to a court).
References:
http://
and
https:/
Chris
.
a warrant is a big deal and allows the police (holder) to do all sorts of unpleasant things. -
of course for various things - they can arrest without warrant for all sorts of things and then search without warrant on the back of that....
and so it all boils down to what are their powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act....
You see presumably your parents have satisfied them first time round that the dog they seek is not on the premises and is not being concealed.
in which case if they arrive with a warrant - the police will have sworn to circumstances (or averred) that they reasonably think or should have thought is untrue - oops - to wit that there is a d dog in the house when there is no evidence there is and evidence there isnt.
yeah no wonder you are confused.
You see if they had done that to me I would have said - search the place now. Presumably they knew you were not at that moment cowering on the top of a wardrobe with said pooch.
SO in short, can they seize a Labrador under a warrant and say - Oh look I think it is a dangerous dog ? shoot it ?
Actually I think they cant.
I thought a magistrate had to certify it was a dangerous dog.
What did the vet say ? Are they the ones that rang the police in the first place and said they thought the dog was dangerous ?
You are screwed if they did because you are half way at least to certification.
see: https:/
a warrant is a big deal and allows the police (holder) to do all sorts of unpleasant things. -
of course for various things - they can arrest without warrant for all sorts of things and then search without warrant on the back of that....
and so it all boils down to what are their powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act....
You see presumably your parents have satisfied them first time round that the dog they seek is not on the premises and is not being concealed.
in which case if they arrive with a warrant - the police will have sworn to circumstances (or averred) that they reasonably think or should have thought is untrue - oops - to wit that there is a d dog in the house when there is no evidence there is and evidence there isnt.
yeah no wonder you are confused.
You see if they had done that to me I would have said - search the place now. Presumably they knew you were not at that moment cowering on the top of a wardrobe with said pooch.
SO in short, can they seize a Labrador under a warrant and say - Oh look I think it is a dangerous dog ? shoot it ?
Actually I think they cant.
I thought a magistrate had to certify it was a dangerous dog.
What did the vet say ? Are they the ones that rang the police in the first place and said they thought the dog was dangerous ?
You are screwed if they did because you are half way at least to certification.
see: https:/
Dogs are a very emotional subject but if your dog is a Staffy and does not look like a Pit Bull Terrier, has never attacked or threatened to attack someone and is always under control you have little to fear from the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended, if you are a responsible dog owner and have not ignored a summons to attend The Magistrates court. It would seem you have been reported to the police for having a dangerous dog or another offence under the above act, and I would suggest you contact the police and make arrangements for them to inspect your dog as soon as is possible. A pre-existing civil remedy is still available under the Dogs Act 1871.
Some decent answers from the lawyers as usual.
I am amazed that anyone got the Police to act in this quite honestly.
Cheezer who was owned by the drug dealer on Repton Av Droylsden was biting other dogs on Clayton Vale for a year before anything happened,
and that included me showing my mauled dog to a politely uninterested policeman(£200 from the vet please)
I even waded thro the Medlock clothed and shod (its not that deep) with the dog once to avoid said Cheezer
and yup it took about a year for them to act (Muzzling order)
So there are more details we havent heard.... quite honestly
I am amazed that anyone got the Police to act in this quite honestly.
Cheezer who was owned by the drug dealer on Repton Av Droylsden was biting other dogs on Clayton Vale for a year before anything happened,
and that included me showing my mauled dog to a politely uninterested policeman(£200 from the vet please)
I even waded thro the Medlock clothed and shod (its not that deep) with the dog once to avoid said Cheezer
and yup it took about a year for them to act (Muzzling order)
So there are more details we havent heard.... quite honestly
Get in touch with these people.... they have helped loads of people out.
https:/
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
Lisa x
https:/
Good luck and let us know how you get on.
Lisa x
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank45 mins ago
ChatterBank127 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles238 mins ago
Elementary Particle In First Half Of...
Crosswords302 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.