1 2 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
ANI M ALS
D I SA B L E D P ERSONS

– A ME R I CANS W I T H D I SABI LI TI ES A CT P REEMPTS S PECI AL I DE NT I FI CA T I ON R E Q U I R E M E N T FOR S ERVICE A NI MAL S I N S TATE W HI TE C ANE L A W

– M E AN I NG OF “P ROFE SS I ONA L L Y T R AI NED ” I N S TATE L AW A UT HORI Z I NG S PECI AL O RANGE T AGS FOR G UI DE D OGS

J une 13, 2001

The H onor abl e Jul i a W

. G ouge, P r es i dent T h e H o n o ra b le D o n a ld

I. D e ll The H onor abl e Robi n B

. Fr az i er C o u n ty C o m m iss io n e rs o f C a rr o ll C o u n ty
Y ou have r eques t ed our opi ni on on t w o ques t i ons conce r ni ng se rv ice a n im a ls:
1. M us t a s er vi ce ani m al be s peci al l y l i cens ed or i dent i fi ed t o a c c o mpa n yi t s o wne r i n a p u b l i c p l a c e ?
2. W hat i s t he m eani ng of t he t er m “pr ofes s i onal l yt r ai ned” as used i n a S t at e st at ute gove rni ng t he is suance of o range l i cense t ags for “dog gui des ”?
For t he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow w e conc l ude:
1. A s er vi ce a ni m al n ee d not be s peci al l yl i cens ed or id e n tifie d to a c c o m p a n yits o w n e r in a p lac e o f p u b lic acc om m odat i on. T he fe der al A m er i cans w i t h D i s abi li ti es A ct ( “A D A ”) pr eempt s a St at e l aw t hat r equi r es document at i on t hatt he d o g is a s e rv ic e a n im a l.
2. A dog m ayqual i fyas “pr ofes s i on all y tr ai ned” i f i t has been t r ai ned by a per s on w ho i s engage d i n t he pr ofes s i on of t r ai ni ng gui de dogs for a l i vi ng, or b y a per s on w i t h a hi gh degr ee of p rof ic i encyor s ki l l i n t r ai ni ng dogs r egar dl es s of how t hatper s on happens t o ear n a l i vi ng. T he ul t i m at e cr i t er i on for w het her t he dog h a s th e re q u isite tra in in g is w h e th e r it h a s o b tain e d th e sk ill s nece s s ar yto a i d i t s ow nert o over come t he par t i cul arobs t acl es as s oci at ed w i t h t he ow ner ’ s di s abi l i t y
. I n admi ni s t er i ng t hats t at ut e, a l ocal l i cens i ng agenc ym ayr el yon r epr es ent at i ons m ade byt heG en. 120] 121

Our o pin ion

is con sis te nt w iththea dv ic e that you pr e vio us ly 1
rec eived f

rom th e C ounty

Attorney ’s offic e on these two issues. See Memorandum of Assistant County Attorney Kimberly A. Millender dated Februar y 15, 2001.
Th at st atut e re a ds in r e le va nt p art : 2 ( 1 ) The b li n d o r th e v is u a ll y handica pped and thede a f o r h e ari ngimp a ired are e nti tle d to fu l l an d e qu a l a c c o mm o d at i o n s , a dv ant a g e s, fa c ili tie s, and

privi le g e s o f a ll c omm on c arrie rs , airplane s, m o t or vehic les, railroa d trains, motor bu se s, str e e t c ar s , b o a t s o r o th e rpubli c c on veyanc e s o r m od e s o f t ra ns po rt atio n, ho te ls, lod g ing pla c e s, pla c e s o f p ub lic a c c omm od atio ns , amusement, or resor

t, or other place s to which the g ener al public is invited, sub j ect only to the conditions and limit ations established by law and applicable to all persons. ( 2 ) A blind or vi s u al l y h andica pped p ed es tri anu s i n g a s erv i ce d o g an d n o tcarryi n g a canepred ominantly

white or meta llic in color (continued...) a p p l i c a n t i n t h e l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n , u n d e r p e n a l t i e s o f p e r j u r y, con cerni ng t he d og ’s t rai ning and app l i cable s kil l s. 1

I
W het her Servi ce A ni m al s M ust D i s pl ay Speci al I dent i f i cat i on
A
. Mar

yland W hi te Cane L aw
U n d e r a M a ry lan d sta tu te p o p u lar lyre f e rre d to a s th e “ W h ite C a n e L a w ,” a n in d iv id u a l w h o is v isu a llyo r h e a rin g im p a ire d is enti t l ed to “full and equ al accom m od at i on s, adv a n t ages, faci l i t i es, and pr i vi l eges ” i n al l “pl ace s of publ i c ac comm odat i ons
. . . s ubj ect onl yt o t he condi t i ons an d li m i t at i ons es t abl i s hed byl aw and appl i cabl e t o al l per s ons
. ” A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 30, §33( d) ( 1)

. I f t hati ndi vi dual us es a ser vi ce dog, he ors he “ha s al l t he ri g h ts a n d p ri v ile g e s c o n f e rr e d b yla w u p o n a n y o th e r p e rs o n ,” w h e th e r o r n o t th e d o g is w e a rin g a sp e c ial ta g o r o th e r a rticle demonst r at i n g that t he dog i s i n fac t a s er vi ce a ni m al

. A r t i cl e 30, § 3 3 (d )(2 ). A “ m o b ili tyim p a ire d ” in d iv id u a l h a s th e sa m e rig h ts to

21 2 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

(...continued) 2 (wit hor without a re d tip); or a dea f or he aring impaired pe destrian usinga ser vice dognot wea ringan ora

ng e licensetagor ora

ng e collar and on a leas h ; or a blind or visually handica pped pedestria n or a de af or

hear ing impair ed pe de strian usin g a se rv ic e do g in any of thepla c e s, a c c omm od ations or

c onve yanc e s li ste d in para graph ( 1) of this subsection; or a se rvice dog trainer acc ompanied by

a dogthat is be ing tr ained as a se rvice dogdisplaying the identification re quired by

subsection (

l) o f th i s s e c t i o n , h a s a ll the r ights an d

p r iv il e g e s c o n f

e r r e d b y la wu pon any other pe rson. Ar tic le30 , § 33 (d)( 1) -( 2)

. Th e Whit e Cane L aw al so a dd re sse s the ri ghts of individuals with disabili ties in co n n ec t ion with public sector emp l o y m en t , emp l o y

m en ts u p p o rt edb y

p u b l i c fun d s , an d

h o u s i n g. Art i c l e 3 0 , § 3 3 (b ) , ( i )

. In t e r f e r e n c e w i th th e s t atut o r

y r i ght s o f a v i s u a l l y, hearing, or mobility

impaired individual is a criminal violation, carry ing a maximumpenalty

of $500. Article 30, §33(g )(1)

. “Disability” is define d under the ADA to mea n: 3
wi th r e sp e c t to an in div idu a l – (continued...) us e a s er vi ce dog. A r t i cl e 30, §33( j )

. H ow ever , t he s t at ut e r equi r es t hatan i ndi vi dual acc om pan ied b ya s er vi ce dog “ di s pl ay i dent i fi cat i on i s s ued bya s er vi ce d o g tr ai neror gani zat i on w hi ch t r ai ns and ce r t i fi es s er vi ce dogs for t he di s abl ed. ” A r t i cl e 30, §33( l ).
B
. A m er i cans w i th D is abi li ti es A ct
I n 1990, C ongr es s enac t ed t he A D A , Pub. L

. N o. 101- 336, 104 St at

. 327, l egi s l at i on t hat has been des cr i bed as “t h e F ed er al G over nm ent ’ s m os t

. . . ext ens i ve ende avort o addr es s di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns t per s ons w i t h di s abi l i t i es
. ” O l m s t ead v. Zi m r i ng , 5 2 7 U

. S. 581, 589 n. 1 ( 1999)

. T i t l e II I of t he A D A pr ohi bi t s pr i vat e ent i t i es fr om di s cr i m i nat i ng “on t he basi s of di s abi l i t y i n t he ful l and equa l enjoy m ent of t he go od s, ser vices , faci l i t i es, pri vil eges, adv antages, or acc om m odat i ons of any pl ace of publ i c ac comm odat i on byany p e rso n w h o o w n s, lea se s (o r lea se s to ), o r o p e ra tes a p lac e o f p u b lic ac co m m o d ati o n
. ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 1 8 2 (a). 3G en. 120] 123

(...continued) 3 (A) a phy sical or mental impairment that s ub s t an tially

limit s one or moreof the major life a c tiv iti e s o f s uc h in div idu a l; (B ) a re cord of

such an impairme nt; or ( C ) being reg arde d a s h av in g s uch an imp a ir me nt. 42 U. S.C. §1 21 02 (2 ); se eals o 28 C.F.R. §36.104. The AD A also includes a def inition of “public acc ommodation.” See42 U. S

. C . §12181(7); 28 C.F.R. §36.104. A copy of this document is available throughthe DOJ web site. 4 See<www .usdoj.gov/c rt/ada/tama n3.html>.
Th e re are e xcepti on s to thi s r e qu ir e me nt. F or e xamp le , a

fa c ili ty 5 is n o t re quired to ac commodate a serviceanimal if the saf

e oper ation of the fac ility

would be jeopa

rdized or a “ fundame ntal alteration” of the fac ility would result. See A D A Ti t l e I I I Techni cal

A s s i s t ance M

anual ¶ I I I -2300. Se eals o 1 A m e r ic a n s wi th D is a b il itie s : Pra c ti c es and Compliance Manual

4:83 (1998 ). Furthermore , the servic e animal rema ins the responsibility of its owner. 28 C.F .R. §36.302(c)( 2). T he D epar t m entof Jus t i ce ( “D O J ”) has i s s ued r egul at i ons and p ro v id e d o th e r g u id a n c e to im p le m e n t T itle II I o f th e A D A

. See 28 C

. F. R

. §36. 101 et

s eq. ; A D A Ti t l e I

I I Techni cal

A s s i s t ance M

anual

. 4 I n i t s r egul at i ons , D O J has s peci fi cal l y addr es s ed t he us e of s er vi ce ani m al s
. “Ser vi ce ani m al ” i s defi ned as “anygui de dog, s i gnal dog, or ot herani m al i ndi vi dual l yt r ai ned t o do w or k or per for m t as ks for t he bene fi t of an i ndi vi dual w i t h a di sab il it y , i ncl udi ng, but not l i m i t ed t o, gui di ng i ndi vi dual s w i t h i m pai r ed vi s i on, al er t i ng i ndi vi dual s w i t h i m pai r ed hear i ng t o i nt r uder s or s ounds , pr ovi di ng m i ni m al pr ot ect i on or r es cue w or k, pul l i ng a w heel chai r , or fet chi ng d ro p p e d ite m s .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 3 6 .1 0 4

. T h e D O J re g u latio n s a d d re ss a f a c ili ty ’s r e sp o n s ib il itie s in con necti on w i t h indi vidual s accom p a nied by ser vice ani m al s. “G eneral l y , a pu bl i c a c c omm od a t i on s hal l m od i fy po l i ci es, pract i ces, or pr ocedur es t o per m i t t he us e of a s er vi ce ani m al by an i ndi vi dual
w i t h a di s abi l i t y
. ” 28 C

. F. R

. §36. 302( c) ( 1)

. W hi l e r ecogni zi ng t hat 5 a number of s t at es have pr ogr ams t hatcer t i fys er v ice an im al s , t he D O J gu i dan ce m akes cl ear t hat “[a] pri vate ent i t y
. . . m ayno t i nsi st on pr oof of S tat e cer t i fi cat i on befor e per m i t t i ng ent r yof a s er vi ce1 2 4 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

Th e Di sa

bil ity Rights Ta sk

F or c e , f or me d b y theCiv il Ri ghts 6 Di vis ion of DO J and theNatio na l A sso c iatio n of Atto rn e y s G e ne ra l, a lso addre ssed this issue in an informatio nsheet titled Commonly Aske d Qu esti on s a bo ut S

e rv ic eAn im als in P lac es o f B us ine ss (Jul y 26, 1996) (“I f you are not cer

tain that an animal is a service a nimal, you may

ask the person who ha s the animal if it is a service animal require d beca use of a disability . ... [However,] documentation g ener ally may not be re quired a s a c o n d i t i o nf

o r p r o v i d i n gs e r

v i c e t o ani n d i v i d

u a l a c c o mp an i e d b y a serviceanimal.”)

. See<www .usdoj.gov:80/cr t/ada/animal.htm>.
T o the extent that the ADA does not a ddress a particula r matter, 7 theState l aw app lie s. F or e xamp le , M ary

land ’s Whit e Cane L aw s e ts forth ce rtain rights and obligations of individuals who tr ai n service animals, a topic not addr essed in the AD A. SeeArticle 30, §33( k).
To avo id c on fu sio n, theGe ne ra l A ss emb ly c ou ld a pp ro priate ly 8 amend Ar ticle 30, §33 (

l) to limit the identification require ment to service do gtr a ine rs
. ani m al t o a p lace of publ i c ac comm odat i on. ” A D A T it le III Techni cal

A s s i s t ance M

anual¶ I I I

- 4. 2300. 6
C. Fede r al

Pr e e mpti on o

f State I de nti f i c ati on Req ui r e m e nt
W hen t her e i s a di ffe r ence bet w een t he A D A and s t at e l aw , t he l aw gr ant i ng an indi vi dual w i t h a di s abi l i t yt he gr eat erl evel of p r o t e c t i o n p r e v a i l s
. 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 0 1 ( b )

. Be c a u s e t h e ADA gener al l yr equi r es a p u b li c accomm odat i on t o al l ow an i ndi vi dual
w i t h a d i sabi l i t yt o b e acco m pan i ed b ya ser vice ani m al , regar dles s of w hether t he indi vidual has do cum entat i on t ha t th e a n i m al i s a s er vi ce a ni m al , a s t at e l aw r equi r i ng t hatan i ndi vi dual di s pl aypr oof o f a n a n im a l’ s tr a in in g is p re e m p t e d

. See, e. g. , G r een v

. H ous i ng A u th o rity o

f C la c ka m a s C o u n ty , 9 9 4 F

. S u p p
. 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 7 (D

. O r. 1998) ( O r egon s t at ut e r equi r ing that a hear i ng eardog be on an o ran g e lea sh p ree m p ted b yA D A ). 7

T her e f o r e , d e s p i t e t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e W h i t e Ca n e La w t hat requi res speci al i den t i fi cat i on of servi ce do gs, a faci l i t yt hat i s a p u b li c ac co m m o d ati o n u n d er T it le III o f th e A D A m ay n o t r eq u ir e p ro o f th a t a d o g h a s h a d sp e c ializ e d tra in in g a s a se rv ice a n im a l. 8G en. 120] 125

We n e e d n ot de te rm ine , f or purp os e s o f t

his op ini on , th e e xtent to 9 wh ic h th e phra se “ pr ofess io nally tr a ine d” in t

he State lic e ns ingstatut e may differ from the ter

m “individually

trained” i n the def

inition of “ser vi ce a nimal” in the fe dera l regulations under Title I I Iof the AD A. Ev e n if a state statut e se ts a h ighe r t hr e sh old fo r l ic e ns ingof

guid e do g s, Title I I Iof the AD A, as we ll as other laws, ma y requireacc ommodation of a disabled individual with a dog that does not meet the State standa rd. See Bronk v. I

neiche n , 5 4 F. 3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 1 (7 C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( al th o u gh th Wis consin statu t e re quired that “ hearing dog ” be “ specia lly trained”at

“ re c ognize d sch oo l,”ho us inga g e nc y may be re qu ir e d und e r f

e de ra l F a ir Housi n g Ac tt o ac co mm o d at e s erv i ce an i m al th atl ac k eds u chcr ed en t ials); Gre e n v . H

ousing A uth or ity

of C lack am as Cou nty , 994 F. Supp. 1253 ( D. Or. 1998) ( Title I Iof ADA , the Fa i r Housing Act, a nd the fe dera l Rehabilitation Act all re quired housingauthority to modify

policy that prohibited a ser

vice dogin an apa

rtment absent ve rification that the dog was “ cer tified” a s a traine d serviceanimal). We a lso do no t a sse ss whe the r l imi ti ngor ang e ta g s to “prof essionally trained”servicedog s would raise issues under Title I Iof the AD A and its relate d regulations, which prohibit discrimination by public entities on the basis of disability

. 42 U.S.C. §12132. See Crowder v . Ki tag awa , 81 F.3d 1480 ( 9 Cir. 1 996) (holdingthat, without th rea sonable modifications, Hawaii’ s 120-day quara ntine require ment for dog s ent er i ngthe state discriminated, in violation of Title I Iof ADA , ag ainst the visually

impaired who r ely

on guide dog s). II Speci al L i cens e T ags f or D og G ui des
A lt h o ugh t he A D A pr ecl udes a publ i c ac comm odat i on fr om r equi r i ng i dent i fi cat i on t hata dog i s a s er vi ce a ni m al , an i ndi vi dual
w i t h a di s abi l i t ym aychoose t o di s pl ays uch i dent i fi cat i on t o det er ques t i ons
. M ar y l and l aw per m i t s an i ndi vi dual w i t h a di s abi l i t yw ho r el i es on a dog t o obt ai n a s peci al or ange l i cens e t ag i dent i fy i ng t hat dog as a “dog gui de” undercer t ai n condi t i ons
. Y ou have r eques t ed our opi ni on conce r ni ng one of t hos e condi t i ons

– tha t t he dog be

“ p ro f e s s io n a lly tra in e d .” 9
A
. Stat utor

y E li gibi li t y R equi r em ent

s f or O r ange L i cens e Tag
U n d e r M a r y l a n d l a w, a d o g o wne r g e n e r a l l y mus t o b t a i n a li ce n se fo r the do g b y p ay ing a fe e t o the lo ca l j u ri sd ict ion ; l icen su re i s evi dence d by a col l art ag i s s ued byt he l ocal l i cens i ng agenc yand
w or n byt he dog. A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 24, §11- 501. I f t he dog i s a s er vi ce a ni m al, the loc al j ur i s di ct i on i s t o w ai ve t he1 2 6 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

Th e su bs e c tio n r e a ds : 10
I f the a

pplication shall disclose and the clerk be sat i s f i e d th atth e d o gf

o r wh i c hth e l i c e n s e is so ught is a “ do gguid e ,” pr of e ssi on a lly tr a ine d to aid th e b li n d o r v is u a ll y h an d ic a p p e d o r d e a f or hearing impair ed, o r m obility impaired, a s the casemay be, and actually in use for such purpose , the license there for sha ll be issued without the pay ment of any

feeand the c l erk s hall inscribe across the fac e of the l icense in red ink the words “dogguide.” Article 24, §11- 502(a)

. Th at su bs e c tio n r e a ds : 11 (1) The application shall be a ccompa nied by an af fidavit from the owner or owner s stating that the dogfor whic h the license is so u gh thas bee n profe ssionally

trained a s a dogguide and stating that the owner

or owne rs ar e awa

re that the owner may be liable, unde r Article 30, §33 of the Code, for damag es ca

used by the guide dog to premises or fa ci lities. Forms for a ffidavits re quired unde r this subsection shall b e made available by the local licensingag ency

in eac h subdivision. (2 ) T h e do g gu i d e s h al l b e i s s u edano ran ge lic e ns e ta gin a dd iti on

to t he ta giss ue d p ur su ant t o §11-501 of this subtitle. The orang e tag s h al l be la be le d “ do gguid e ” and

sh a ll i nd ic ate that

it i s issued by this S tate. Pursuant to Article 41, §18- (continued...) f e e a n d iss u e a sp e c ial o ra n g e tag lab e led “ d o g g u id e ,” in a d d iti o n to th e re g u la r t a g , in p r e s c r i b e d c ir c u m s ta n c e s . A rt ic le 2 4 , § 1 1 -5 0 2

. T o qual i fyt he dog fort he s peci al t ag and f ee w aive r , t he l i cens e appl i cat i on m us t i ndi cat e, and “t he cl er k [m us t ] be s at i s fi ed t hatt he dog .

. . i s a ‘dog gui de’ , pr ofes s i onal l y t r ai ned t o ai d t he bl i nd o r v isu a llyh a n d ica p p e d o r d e a f o r h e a rin g im p a ire d , o r m o b ili ty i m pai r ed .

. . and ac t ual l yi n us e fors uch p u rpo se. ” A r t i cl e 24, §11- 502( a)

. I n addi t i on, t he ow ner m us t s ubm i t an af fi davi t s t at i ng 10 th a t th e d o g “ h a s b e e n p ro f e s s io n a lly t r a in e d a s a d o g g u id e .” A r t i c l e 2 4 , § 1 1

- 5 0 2 ( b )

. Th e l o c a l l i c e n s i n g a g e n c yi s t o p r o vi de a f f id a v it f o rm s f o r t h a t p u rp o s e
. I

d. 11G en. 120] 127

(...continued) 11 201 of th e Code, the Department of G ener al Service s shall purcha se the ora ng e tag s and make them ava i l ab l e t o t h e co u n t ies upon reimburse ment for the c ost of the tag s. Article 24, §11- 502(b).
Be causethe term “ seeing- ey e d og ” wa s a tradename, the 12 L eg islature later substitut ed the term “dog guide.” Chapte r 115, L aws of Maryland 1963.
Duri ngthe19 60 s, theL e g isl atur e e na c te d a p re c ur so r o f t

he Whit e 13 Cane L aw whic h confe rre d a right on a blind person to beacc ompanied by a dogguide in a plac e of public a ccommodation. As orig inally enac ted, that st atut e re qu ir e d th at th e do g“ be pr op e rl y ide nti fi ed as b e ingfrom a rec ognized school for the cer tification of dogguides.” SeeChapter 190, L aws of Ma

ryland 1966, c od

ifi e d in Article 30, §33. H oweve r, the ref ere nce to tra ining at a “r ecognized school” was e liminated the followin g y ear, and the a

mended statute me rely

require d that the dogbe “espe cially

trained.”Chapter 663, L aws of Ma ryland 1967. T he s t at ut e does not pr ovi de any gui dance on how t o det er m i ne i f a dog ha s been “ pr ofes s i onal l y t r ai ned. ” N or does St at e l aw have a n ylic e n s in g o r c e rt if

ic a tio n re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r d o g g u id e tr a in e rs
. B
. L egis lati ve H

is tor y of T r aini ng C ondi ti on
T he Legi s l at ur e i ncl uded a t r ai ni ng r equi r ement as a condi t i on for a l i cens e fe e w ai ver w hen i t fi r s t enac t ed t he pr edec es s or of §11- 50 2 in 1 9 5 7

. A t t hat t i m e, t he st at ute r equ i red t hat a l i cense appl i cat i on for a “s eei ng- ey e dog” d is cl os e t hatt he dog w as 12 “t r ai ned t o ai d t he bl i nd. ” See C hapt er611, L aw s of M ar y l and 1957, codi f i ed as A r t i cl e 56, §200A

. W hi l e t he s t at ut e di d not s peci fyt he s o u r c e o f

t h a t t r a i n i n g , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e q u i r e d t r a i n i n g s e e ms 13
c lea r. T h e tra in in g w a s to im p a rt sk ill s th a t w o u ld e n a b le th e d o g to assi sta person in overcom i ng t he o bst acl es i m po sed by bli nd ness.
I n 1978, t he Legi s l at ur e ext ended t he s t at ut e t o encompas s dog g u i d e s t h a t “ a i d t h e d e a f o r a u d i o h a n d i c a p p e d

. ” Ch a p t e r 9 2 9 , L a ws o f M a ryla n d 1 9 7 8 , c o d ifie d in A r t i cl e 56, §192. T hatl egi s l at i on p ro v id e d f

o r a sp e c ial o ra n g e tag to id e n tify su c h a d o g . A p p a re n tly beca us e t he us e of dogs by t he hear i ng i m pai r ed w as l es s r ecogni zed, t he amendm ent r equi r ed s peci fi c t r ai ni ng and r el at ed document at i on as a pr er equi s i t e t o a s peci al l i cens e fora dog gui de t hatas s i s t ed a1 2 8 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

The 1979 leg islation a lso r equire d that the ora ng e licensetag s be 14 labeled “ hearing e ar dog ” and that the Department of G ener al Service s make su c h ta g s ava ila

bleto l oc a l li c e ns inga

uth oriti e s at c os t.
In 1992, former

Article 56, §192, w as tra n s fe rre d to its current 15 codification, Article 24, §11-502. Howeve r, no substantive chang es we re made. Chapte r 4, §4, L aws of Ma ryland 1992. In 1997, the provision of the Whit e Cane L aw r equiringthat a guide do g display

specia l identification was amended to re quire that the identification be “issued by a ser vice dogtrainer

org anization which trains and ce rtifies ser

vice dog s for the disable d.” Chapter 556, L aws of Maryland 1997, c od

ifi e d in Article 30, §33( l). Howe ver, no similar amendment wa s made to the l icensing law. Moreove r, that provision, at least as it pe rtains to individuals with disa biliti es, has been pree mpted by the ADA. SeePart

Iof thi s o pin ion . ( Th e pr ovis ion pr e suma bly sti ll (continued...) hear i ng i m pai r ed per s on. I n par t i cul ar , s uch a dog w as t o have “ at l eas t 3 m ont hs t r ai ni ng i n a pr ofes s i onal t r ai ni ng s choo l fo r gui de d o g s.” In th e a b se n c e o f a c e rtific a te f

ro m th e sc h o o l, t h e st a tu te per m i t t ed t he ow nert o s ubm i t an af fi davi t at t es t i ng t hat t he dog had r e c e i v e d t h e r e q u i r e d t r a i n i n g
. Howev e r , t h e f o l l o wi n g y ear , t he L egi s l at ur e r econs i der ed t he s peci al t r ai ni ng condi t i on and e lim in a ted th e r e q u ire m e n t o f a m in im u m d u ra tio n o f tra in in g a t a “s chool ” i n favorof s i m pl yr equi r i ng an af fi davi t fr om t he ow ner t hatt he dog ha d been t r ai ned t o ai d t he hea r i ng i m pai r ed. C hapt er 56 5 , L aw s o f M ar y l and 1979. T hus , as w i t h dogs t hatai ded t he 14 bl i nd, t he t r ai ni ng r equi r ement w as key ed t o t he natur e of t he ow ner ’ s di s abi l i t y ; t he onl y di ffe r ence w as t hat t he t r ai ni ng of a dog that as s i s t ed a he ar i ng i m pai r ed per s on had t o be document ed by a f f id a v it.
Fi nal l y , i n 1990, t he l i cens i ng l aw w as amended t o coverdogs t hat ai d “mobi l i t y i m pai r ed” i ndi vi dual s
. C hapt er 569, L aw s of M a ry lan d 1 9 9 0 . A t th e sa m e tim e , the L e g isla tu re re v ise d th e sta tu te to p ro v id e f

o r o ra n g e tag s an d to im p o se sim ilar r e q u ire m e n ts a s to t r ai ni ng and document at i on for al l s er vi ce dogs

. I n par t i cul ar , t he s t at ut e now r equi r ed t hata dog be “ pr ofes s i onal l yt r ai ned” t o ai d a person w i t h one of t he t hree t ypes of l i st ed d i sabi l i t i es “as t he case m aybe. ” I n addi t i on, t he ow nerw as t o s ubm i t an af fi davi t at t es t i ng to th a t tr a in in g
. I

d. H ow ever , t he amendm entdi d not defi ne “pr ofes s i onall y t r ai ned. ” N or does t he l egi s l at i ve fi l e s ugges t t hat t he Legi s l at ur e had an y sp eci al m eani ng i n m i nd for t hatphr as e. T he s t at ut e has r emai ned es s ent i al l yunchange d s i n ce t he 1990 a m e n d m e n t. 15G en. 120] 129

(...continued) 15 applies to servic e dogtrainer s acc ompanied by a ser vice dog .)
We understand that various org anizations have adopte d their own 16 sta nd ard s. F or

e xamp le , A ssi sta

nc e Do g s Inte rn atio na l, a nonp rof it org anization of persons enga g ed in training service dog s, has established minimumstandards that its m em bers a greeto employ in trainingguide dog s. See< www.a ssistance-dog s-intl.org >. C
. A n a lys is
T he hi s t or yof t he dog l i cens i ng prov isi on demonst r at es t hat t he Legi s l atur e has decl i ned t o s peci fy t r ai ni ng s t andar ds for gui de d o g s , o th e r t h a n re q u ir in g th a t th e d o g b e “ p ro f e s s io n a lly tra in e d .” W h i l e t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s i n t h e p a s t b r i e f l y r e q u i r e d t r a i n i n g b y a “s chool , ” t hat r equi r ement no l onger appea r s i n t he s t at ut e. N or , as w e u n d e r s t a n d i t , i s t h e r e a s i n g l e i n d u s t r ys t a n d a r d f o r e v a l u at i ng w h e th e r a d o g g u id e is “ p ro f e s s io n a lly tra in e d .” 16

T h e p h r as e “pr ofes s i onal l yt r ai ned” a ppear s t o r efe r t o t he s ki l l s and compet ence of t he t r ai ner
. Per t i nent di ct i onar ydefi ni t i ons o f a “ p ro f e ss io n a l” in c lu d e “ a p e rso n w h o e n g a g e s in so m e a rt, sp o rt, e tc

.. . for hi s l i veli ho od ” and “a person w ho do es som et hing w i th gr eats ki l l

. ” W ebs t er ’ s N ew W or l d D i ct i onary ( 2d ed. 1986) atp. 1134. T hus , i n comm on par l ance , a dog i s “pr ofes s i onal l yt r ai ned” i f i t has been t r ai ned by a per s on w ho i s engage d i n t he pr ofes s i on of t r a i n i n g d o g g u i d e s f

o r a l i v i n g , o r b ya p e r s o n wi t h a h i g h d e g r ee of pr ofi ci encyor s ki l l i n t r ai ni ng s uch a dog r egar dl es s of how t hat p e rs o n h a p p e n s to e a rn a liv in g
. In o u r vie w , th e re q u ire m e n t th a t a d o g b e “ p ro f e ss io n a lly t r ai ned” must al s o be ass es s ed i n l i ght of t he purpos e of t he or ange li ce n se tag

. T h e sp ec ial li ce n se tag is n o t an in sign ia of the d o g ’s lev e l o f sc h o o lin g . R a th e r, th e u lti m a te p u rp o se o f th e sp e c ial ta g is t o e n a b l e me mbe r s o f

t h e p u b l i c t o r e a d i l yd i s t i n g u i s h a d o g g u i de fr om a pet and t o el i m i nat e t he quest i ons and expl anat i ons t hatm i ght ot her w i s e be pr om pt ed w hen a per s on w i t h a di s abi l i t ys eeks t o ent er a p lace of publ i c ac comm odat i on i n t he companyof a dog gui de. T he t r ai ni ng r equi r ement i n t he s t at ut e t hus s er ves t o s epar at e a dog t hat i s s i m pl y a com pani on fr om one t hati s t r ai ned t o as s i s t i t s ow ner in o v e rc o m in g o b s ta c le s a s s o c ia te d w ith th e o w n e r’ s d is a b ility.
It is n o tab le th a t th e sta tu to ry tra in in g re q u ire m e n t is n ot sim p ly th a t th e d o g b e “ p ro f

e ss io n a llytra in e d ,” b u t ra th e r “ p ro f e ss io n a lly1 3 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

Article 24, §1- 105 addr es s es the manne r in which a document 17 under oath may

be made for purposes of that article. The oath itself serve s as a “ guara

ntee of cre dibility .” W

ats on v . S tate , 18 Md. App. 184, 189, 3 0 6 A

. 2 d

5 9 9 ( 1 9 73), ce r t

. denied, 269 Md. 759, 768 (1973). An aff idavit ma d e i nacc ordanc e with the statute subjec ts the aff iant to the pe na lti e s of

pe rj ur y . An in div idu a l who wi llf ull y su bmi ts a fa lsea ff ida vit c an b e pr os e c ute d und e r Art ic le 27 , § 43 5. Art ic le 24 , § 11 -5 09 (a) a lso provi d es a criminal pena lty for violations under the subtitl e entitled “Regulation of Animals.”
Iti s o ur un d e r s t an d i n gth atp r a c t i c e s ar o un d th e S t at e v ar

y. 18 Although the L eg islature has not dictated a specific form of a ffidavit, loca l lic e ns inga g e nc ie s ma

y fi nd it u se fu l to a gre e up on

a un if or m a ff ida vit form. t rai ned t o aid t he b l i nd

. .. deaf

. . . or m ob i l i t yi m pair ed, as t he case m aybe. ” T he t r ai ni ng condi t i on t hus cont empl at es t hat t he t r ai ner i s s ki l l ed i n t eac hi ng a dog how t o pr ovi de s er vi ces adapt ed t o t he o w n er’s p arti cu lar disab il it y
. In o u r view , the f o cu s o f th e inq u ir y sh o u ld b e p ri m aril yo n the sk il ls of the d o g in relati o n to the o w n er’s d isab il it yrathe r than sim p ly o n the fo rm al cred en ti als o f th e traine r.
B yr equi ri n g aff

i davi t s on for m s m ade a vai l abl e byl ocal lice n sin g a g e n c ies , th e L e g isla tu re h a s p ro v id e d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts w i t h a mechani s m for m aki ng t he det er m i nat i on w het her a par t i cul ar d o g m ee ts t h e training crit erio n
. T h e a ff idav itfo rm m ay req u ir e 17 rep rese n tat ion s as to the d o g ’s ab il it ies i n relati o n to the o w n er’s di s abi l i t y , t h e i d e n t i t y a n d s k i l l o f t h e t r a i n e r , a n d t h e c o u r s e of t r ai ni ng. T he cl er k i s s ui ng t he ora nge t ag m ayr eas onabl yr el yon

18 in f o rm a tio n p ro v id e d in th a t a f f id a v it.

III
C oncl usi on
T i t l e I I I of t he A D A pr ecl udes a publ i c accomm odat i on fr om req u ir ing pr oof t hata dog i s a s er vi ce a ni m al befor e al l ow i ng t he d o g t o a c c o m p a n y a n i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a d i s a b i l i t y i n t o t h e f a c i l i t y. Th u s , t o t h e e x t e n t Ar t i c l e 3 0 , §33 (l ) w oul d r equi r e s peci al i dent i fi cat i on for a s er vi ce dog t o acc om panyi t s ow ner i n a pl ace of publ i c ac comm odat i on, i t confl i ct s w i t h t he A D A , and i s pr eempt ed b yf e d e ra l la w
.G en. 120] 131
T he s t at ut e gover ni ng t he i s s uance of or ange l i cens e t ags does not s peci al l ydefi ne t he phra s e “pr ofes s i onal l y t r ai ned”; nor does t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y s ugges t t hat t he phra s e car r i es a s peci al m eani ng. I n our opi ni on, a dog m ay qual i fy as “pr ofes s i onal l y t r ai ned” i f i t has been t r ai ned i n s peci al s ki l l s adapt ed t o i t s ow ner ’ s di s abi l i t y
. T he t r ai ni ng m aybe conduc t ed bya per s on w ho i s eng aged i n t he pr ofes s i on of t r ai ni ng dog gui des for a l i vi ng, or bya per s on w i t h a hi gh degr ee of

pr ofi ci encyor s ki l l i n t r ai ni ng dogs r egar dl es s of how th a t p e rs o n h a p p e n s to e a rn a liv in g
. In a d m in is te ri n g th e s ta tu te , a loca l l icen sing ag en cy m ay rely o n rep rese n tat ion s in a n ap p li ca n t’ s aff i davi t t hat des cr i be t he dog’ s s ki l l s and t he manner i n w hi ch t he d o g w a s tr a in e d

.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
W i l l i am R

. V ar ga A s s i s t antAt t o r n e

y G ener al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce