Source: https://www.animallaw.info/statute/md-ordinances-article-24-political-subdivisions-miscellaneous-provisions
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 18:32:49
Document Index: 192871570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', 'Art. 24', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 9', 'Art. 24', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 41', '§ 13', '§ 4', '§ 1', 'Art. 24', '§ 11', '§ 11']

MD - Ordinances - Article 24. Political Subdivisions--Miscellaneous Provisions. | Animal Legal & Historical Center
Full Statute Name: West's Annotated Code of Maryland. Local Government. Division III. Counties [Titles 9-15]. Title 13. Other Powers of Counties--Regulatory. Subtitle 1. Regulation of Animals. Part II. Local Provisions
Primary Citation: MD Code, Local Government, § 13-117; MD Code, Local Government, § 13-118; MD Code, Local Government, § 13-121 Country of Origin: United States Last Checked: November, 2018
Summary: These Maryland statutory sections apply to Carroll, Cecil, and Frederick Counties. The laws provide that the county commissioners, by ordinance, may provide for a comprehensive system for the regulation of domestic animals, including dogs, and wild animals held in captivity, within the county, including licensing and control. Also included are provisions for the impoundment and disposal of unlicensed or dangerous dogs and provisions for the regulation of persons who own or keep any animal which disturbs the peace.
This section is new language derived without substantive change from former Art. 24, § 11-501(o), and, as they related to Carroll County, §§ 11-511 and 11-504(e)(1), (f), and the second sentence of (c).
In subsection (a)(1) of this section and throughout this subtitle, the former references to animals “within the county” are deleted as implicit.
In subsection (a)(2)(ii) of this section and throughout this subtitle, the references to “seizing” dogs are substituted for the former references to “impound[ing]” dogs for consistency with other similar provisions of this subtitle.
In subsection (a)(2)(iv) of this section and throughout this subtitle, the former references to imprisonment “in the county jail” are deleted as unnecessary in light of CS § 9-104 which states that “notwithstanding any other law, a judge may not sentence an individual to the jurisdiction of the Division [of Correction] for 12 months or less”.
This section is new language derived without substantive change from former Art. 24, §§ 11-501(p), 11-504(l)(4) and (5), and, as they related to Cecil County, §§ 11-511, 11-512, and 11-503(a).
In subsection (a)(1) of this section, the former reference to a resolution or ordinance “enacted according to its usual procedure” is deleted as implicit.
In subsection (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the reference to “separate” resolution or ordinance is added for clarity.
In subsection (a)(2)(v) of this section, the reference to a resolution or ordinance “enacted in accordance with this section” is substituted for the former reference to a resolution or ordinance “applicable to domestic animals” for clarity and consistency.
In subsection (e) of this section, the former reference to disturbing the “quiet” of a neighborhood is deleted as included in the reference to disturbing the “peace” of a neighborhood.
In subsection (e)(1) and (4)(i)1 and (ii) of this section, the former references to a neighborhood “in an inhabited area” are deleted as implicit.
In subsection (e)(1) and (4)(i)2 and (ii) of this section, the references to an “individual” are substituted for the former references to “a person” to reflect that only an individual could be bitten by a dog.
In subsection (e)(2) of this section, the former reference to “public” peace is deleted as surplusage.
In subsection (e)(3) of this section, the reference to “[a] person who violates” certain provisions is substituted for the former reference to “[a]ny owner failing to comply with” certain provisions for clarity and consistency with other similar provisions of the Code.
In subsection (e)(4)(i) of this section, the reference to persons “alleging” certain information is added for consistency and clarity.
In subsection (e)(4)(ii) of this section, the reference to the authority of the “District Court” to require an owner to take certain actions is added for clarity.
Also in subsection (e)(4)(ii) of this section, the authority of the court to take certain actions “[a]fter a finding” is substituted for the former authority of the court to take certain actions “[u]pon proof” for clarity.
Also in subsection (e)(4)(ii) of this section, the former reference to the “offending” animal is deleted as implicit.
In subsection (e)(4)(iii) of this section, the reference to removing an animal “in accordance with subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph” is substituted for the former reference to removing an animal “as aforesaid” for clarity.
Also in subsection (e)(4)(iii) of this section, the former reference to an owner or keeper who “refuses or” fails to comply is deleted as redundant.
Also in subsection (e)(4)(iii) of this section, the former reference to “any duly empowered” agent is deleted as surplusage.
Also in subsection (e)(4)(iii) of this section, the former reference to seizing an animal “on behalf” of the county is deleted as implicit.
Also in subsection (e)(4)(iii) of this section, the former reference to an animal “wherever it may be found” is deleted as implicit.
The Local Government Article Review Committee notes, for consideration by the General Assembly, that there is a potential constitutional problem in subsection (e) of this section as it relates to the District Court. The Constitution requires that the jurisdiction of the District Court be uniform throughout the State. (Art. IV, § 41A of the Maryland Constitution). As this provision would be applicable to Cecil County only (and an identical provision revised in § 13-123 of this subtitle would be applicable only in Harford County), there is an issue as to whether this provision is constitutional. The Attorney General's Office has suggested that one way to achieve the intent of this provision in a constitutional manner would be to amend § 4-401 of the Courts Article to specifically grant the District Court (statewide) jurisdiction over the enforcement of local animal control laws. Each county could then adopt procedures such as those in Cecil and Harford counties relating to the authority of the District Court.
Defined terms: “Governing body” § 1-101
This section is new language derived without substantive change from former Art. 24, §§ 11-501(k), 11-504(e)(2), and, as they related to Frederick County, §§ 11-511, 11-512, 11-501(a), 11-503(a), and 11-504(e)(1).