In Padi hearing, sound legal stands on unconstitutionality of dangerous dog statute

Under odd circumstances, attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant stood before a judge Wednesday and argued the same position. Our jurisprudence system is designed to hear opposing views, but this Manatee County case involving the fate of the now internationally famous dog known as Padi holds other unique elements, too.

While the facts surrounding Padi's bite of a 4-year-old child at veterinarian Paul Gartenberg's Pet Clinic in June are not crystal clear since there were no eyewitnesses, the key legal argument in whether the dog should be euthanized according to state law is not clear either.

Circuit Court Judge Andrew Owens Jr. appeared somewhat bemused that Robert Eschenfelder, Manatee County's chief assistant attorney, and Charles Britt, representing Gartenberg, Padi's owner, both presented cases calling the current state statute on dangerous dogs unconstitutional. The denial of due process, the right to present a defense of mitigating circumstances and other issues, stands at the heart of this.

Conflicting opinions around the state, including several judicial rulings that agreed the statute is unconstitutional, blur the law's status since those opinions never reached appellate courts.

Plus, local government opinions vary, leaving this issue in legal limbo. Eschenfelder cited a survey of county officials around the state and found an even split among respondents, so uncertainty looks like a solid legal foundation for a ruling of unconstitutionality.

In 1999, a Florida court ruled the law unconstitutional because it mandated euthanasia "regardless of the circumstances," a violation of due process. That dog was returned to its owner. But the statute remains on the books.

Britt noted that "two people can look at the same law and read it differently. That in and of itself makes it unconstitutional. Law should be clear and that there is no guesswork."

Indeed, to that end Rep. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, is sponsoring legislation that would clarify the law and allow due process, with reasonable exceptions to euthanasia and hearing officer discretion. Coincidentally on Wednesday, his bill passed unanimously in its second House committee stop with one more remaining. CS/HB 91 also enjoys a Senate sponsor.

Wednesday's hourlong proceeding in front of a packed courtroom -- with dozens more in the hallway outside -- reflects the intense public interest in this case. More than a hundred Padi supporters sporting Free Padi shirts filled the Manatee Judicial Center.

Owens rightfully cautioned the emotionally invested crowd to maintain civility. And they did.

This is a matter concerning the rule of law, and the judge cannot issue a decision based on emotions. Owens indicated he would rule within two weeks, disappointing Padi supporters who hoped for a favorable ruling from the bench.

Padi's case is marked by uncertainty -- accounts differ on whether the 4-year-old child lunged at Padi to get him out from under a desk at the clinic in Bradenton or whether Padi lunged at the child when he bent over to pick up a toy by the desk. The child lost part of one ear in the June 2014 incident.

The law calls for dangerous dogs to be automatically euthanized for causing severe bite injuries that cause disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery, as Manatee County authorities initially decided.

Public outrage over that decision focused on county commissioners, with the misguided expectation they could overrule the administrative officer's decision, which followed a strict interpretation of the statute. But the commission is not a judicial body but a policy-making body that must follow state law.

The case is now where it belongs, before a judge in a court of law, thanks to the county's pursuit of clarity on the statute. Eschenfelder argued the statute denied "substantial due process" and was "arbitrary and unduly oppressive" in requiring mandatory death.

Britt echoed that position, also noting due process provisions in both the U.S. and Florida constitutions. Due process "prohibits the arbitrary enforcement of a law that lacks statutory guidance," which allows the "unlawful delegation of law-making responsibility and authority" to local officials.

We hope Owens agrees. If so, Padi will be home free.

This story was originally published November 8, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "In Padi hearing, sound legal stands on unconstitutionality of dangerous dog statute ."