After a dog attack: the dangerous dog statutes, and what actually happens to the dog

Minnesota's dangerous dog law is a separate system from the statute that pays damages. It has its own definition of owner, its own definition of provocation, a 14-day clock, and a destruction provision that does not require a prior declaration.

Two things happen after a dog attack in Minnesota, and they are governed by different statutes that share a chapter number and almost nothing else. One is a claim for money, which runs on Minn. Stat. § 347.22 and is the subject of the dog bite statute guide. The other is an administrative process about the dog, which runs on Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 to 347.565. They use some of the same words and define them differently, and the second one has clocks that close in fourteen days.

Two systems, and the boundary between them

Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 1 draws the line in one sentence: “For the purpose of sections 347.50 to 347.56, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them.” Everything defined in § 347.50 — including “owner” and “provocation” — is defined for that range and no further, and § 347.22 sits outside it.

That is not a technicality, because the two definitions of “owner” are genuinely different. Section 347.22 says the term “includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable,” a formulation the Minnesota Supreme Court has parsed in the cases discussed in the dog bite statute guide. Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 5 is broader and flatter: “‘Owner’ means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog.”

The provocation definitions differ in the same way. Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 8 defines provocation as “an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite” — an objective-expectation test, and it governs the dangerous dog provisions. The standard for a damages claim under § 347.22 comes from case law and is not that test; the dog bite statute guide sets it out.

The two designations

Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2 defines the more serious one:

"Dangerous dog" means any dog that has:

(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property;

(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or

(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.

“Substantial bodily harm” is not left to judgment; subdivision 6 gives it “the meaning given it under section 609.02, subdivision 7a,” and subdivision 6a does the same for “great bodily harm” by reference to § 609.02, subd. 8.

Subdivision 3 defines the lesser designation, and it is triggered by much less:

"Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that:

(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property;

(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or

(3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.

Clause (2) requires no contact at all — an unprovoked approach “in an apparent attitude of attack” is enough, and the statute names a person on a bicycle as one of the people it protects.

Both designations are subject to the same exemptions. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 5 provides that dogs “may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person: (1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog; (2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or (3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.”

Registration, and the $300,000 the statute requires

Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 1 is one sentence: “No person may own a dangerous dog in this state unless the dog is registered as provided in this section.” Subdivision 2 lists what the owner has to prove before the animal control authority issues a certificate of registration:

(1) a proper enclosure exists for the dangerous dog and a posting on the premises with a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property, including a warning symbol to inform children;

(2) a surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to conduct business in this state in a form acceptable to the animal control authority in the sum of at least $300,000, payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog, or a policy of liability insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to conduct business in this state in the amount of at least $300,000, insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog;

(3) the owner has paid an annual fee of not more than $500, in addition to any regular dog licensing fees, to obtain a certificate of registration for a dangerous dog under this section; and

(4) the owner has had microchip identification implanted in the dangerous dog as required under section 347.515.

Clause (2) is the one an injured person’s file should note. The bond is “payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog,” and the alternative liability policy insures “the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog.” Whether either exists in a given case is a question for the animal control authority’s registration file.

“Proper enclosure” is defined, and narrowly. Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 4 means “securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog,” and then excludes the arrangements people actually use: “A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting.”

Minn. Stat. § 347.515 requires a microchip for a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog, requires the manufacturer name and identification number to be given to the animal control authority, permits the authority to implant it if the owner does not, and puts all costs on the owner in either case.

What the owner has to keep doing

Minn. Stat. § 347.52 is a set of continuing obligations rather than a one-time condition.

Paragraph (a): the dog must be kept in a proper enclosure while on the owner’s property, and outside it “must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under the physical restraint of a responsible person,” with the muzzle made so as to prevent biting “but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration.”

Paragraph (b): registration must be renewed annually “until the dog is deceased,” and a dog removed from the jurisdiction “must be registered as a dangerous dog in its new jurisdiction.”

Paragraph (c): written notice to the animal control authority of the dog’s death or transfer to a new location within 30 days, with an affidavit under oath if the authority requests one, setting out either the circumstances of death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the transferee.

Paragraph (d): “An animal control authority shall require a dangerous dog to be sterilized at the owner’s expense. If the owner does not have the animal sterilized within 30 days, the animal control authority shall seize the dog and have it sterilized at the owner’s expense.”

Paragraph (e): an owner who rents “must disclose to the property owner prior to entering the lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a dangerous dog that will reside at the property.”

Paragraph (f): an owner transferring ownership must tell the new owner about the designation, and must notify the authority in writing with the new owner’s name, address, and telephone number.

Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 7 adds a tag requirement — “a standardized, easily identifiable tag identifying the dog as dangerous and containing the uniform dangerous dog symbol, affixed to the dog’s collar at all times.”

The clock that closes in fourteen days

Minn. Stat. § 347.541 governs process, and its deadlines are short.

Subdivision 1 states the right: “The owner of any dog declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer.” Subdivision 2 gives a person claiming an interest in a seized dog a way to stop disposition — posting “security in an amount sufficient to provide for the dog’s actual cost of care and keeping,” which “must be posted within seven days of the seizure inclusive of the date of the seizure.”

Subdivision 3 requires the declaring authority to give notice by delivery, mail, posting at the place the dog is kept, or delivery to a person residing on the property, telephoning if possible. The notice must contain a description of the dog and the authority, purpose, time, place, and circumstances of the declaration and seizure; and then five further items, of which the second is the one with the deadline in it:

(2) a statement that the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the dangerous dog declaration and, if applicable, prior potentially dangerous dog declarations for the dog, and that failure to do so within 14 days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner's right to a hearing under this section;

(3) a statement that if an appeal request is made within 14 days of the notice, the owner must immediately comply with the requirements of section 347.52, paragraphs (a) and (c), and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion;

(4) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog declaration, the owner will have 14 days from receipt of that decision to comply with all other requirements of sections 347.51, 347.515, and 347.52;

Subdivision 4 completes the schedule: any hearing “must be held within 14 days of the request,” the hearing officer “must be an impartial employee of the local government or an impartial person retained by the local government to conduct the hearing,” a decision issues “within ten days after the hearing,” and if the declaration is upheld “actual expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of $1,000 will be the responsibility of the dog’s owner.”

Seizure, reclaiming, and destruction

Minn. Stat. § 347.54, subd. 1(a) requires an animal control authority to “immediately seize any dangerous dog” in five situations: the dog is unregistered 14 days after the owner has notice of the designation; the required insurance or surety coverage is not secured within that same 14 days; the dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; the dog is outside the enclosure without the physical restraint § 347.52 requires; or the dog is not sterilized within 30 days.

Paragraph (b) adds a criminal-case route: “If an owner of a dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and humane manner, and that the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog.”

Subdivision 2 permits reclaiming “upon payment of impounding and boarding fees, and presenting proof to the appropriate animal control authority that the requirements of sections 347.51 and 347.52 will be met,” and sets the outer limit: “A dog not reclaimed under this subdivision within seven days may be disposed of in a manner permitted by law.”

Subdivision 3 handles the repeat case. Where a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor for violating § 347.51, § 347.515, or § 347.52 and is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog “must be seized.” On conviction, “the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the cost of confining and destroying the animal.” The verb there is “shall,” not “may.”

Minn. Stat. § 347.56 is the provision that operates without any of the preceding machinery. Subdivision 1 opens with “Notwithstanding sections 347.51 to 347.55” and then permits destruction where the dog:

(1) inflicted substantial or great bodily harm on a human on public or private property without provocation;

(2) inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property without provocation;

(3) bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack without provocation; or

(4) bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack where more than one dog participated in the attack.

Subdivision 2 imposes process and imports the defences: “The animal control authority may not destroy the dog until the dog owner has had the opportunity for a hearing before an impartial decision maker. The definitions in section 347.50 and the exemptions under section 347.51, subdivision 5, apply to this section.”

Penalties, and the ban on owning a dog at all

Minn. Stat. § 347.55(a) makes a violation of § 347.51, § 347.515, or § 347.52 a misdemeanor. Paragraph (b) adds a list of specific misdemeanors — removing a microchip from a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog, failing to renew a registration, failing to account for a dangerous dog’s death or change of location, signing a false affidavit about either, and failing to disclose ownership of a dangerous dog to a landlord. Paragraph (c) makes a second or subsequent violation a gross misdemeanor.

Minn. Stat. § 347.542, subd. 1 goes further and bars dog ownership entirely for a person who has been convicted of a third or subsequent violation of § 347.51, § 347.515, or § 347.52, of a violation under § 609.205, clause (4), of a gross misdemeanor under § 609.226, subd. 1, or of a violation under § 609.226, subd. 2, or who “had a dog ordered destroyed under section 347.56 and been convicted of one or more violations” of the sections that clause enumerates.

Subdivision 2 extends the prohibition past the person: “If any member of a household is prohibited from owning a dog in subdivision 1, unless specifically approved with or without restrictions by an animal control authority, no person in the household is permitted to own a dog.” Section 347.55(d) and (e) make violating either subdivision a gross misdemeanor, including for “Any household member who knowingly violates section 347.542, subdivision 2.”

Subdivision 3 supplies a route back. Beginning three years after the disqualifying conviction, and annually after that, the person may ask the animal control authority to review the prohibition, and the authority may rescind it entirely, rescind it with limitations, or set conditions “including, but not limited to, successfully completing dog training or dog handling courses.”

A parallel review exists for the dog. Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 3a permits an owner, beginning six months after a dog is declared dangerous, to request annually that the authority review the designation on evidence “that the dog’s behavior has changed due to the dog’s age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that includes modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors,” and the authority may rescind the designation if it finds sufficient evidence.

Local ordinances, and the one thing they may not do

Minn. Stat. § 347.53 preserves local authority in broad terms: a statutory or home rule charter city or a county “may regulate potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs,” and “Except as provided in section 347.51, subdivision 8, nothing in sections 347.50 to 347.565 limits any restrictions that the local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs.”

The cross-referenced exception is short and absolute:

A statutory or home rule charter city, or a county, may not adopt an ordinance regulating dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs based solely on the specific breed of the dog. Ordinances inconsistent with this subdivision are void.

And the state scheme does not depend on local adoption at all. Minn. Stat. § 347.565: “Sections 347.50 to 347.56 must be enforced by animal control authorities or law enforcement agencies, whether or not these sections have been adopted into local ordinance.”

Where the injury claim goes

None of this is the damages claim. The statute that makes a dog’s owner liable in damages is Minn. Stat. § 347.22, it conditions liability on the dog acting without provocation against a person acting peaceably in a place where the person may lawfully be, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has described the liability it creates as absolute. That is the subject of the dog bite statute guide, which also explains why the § 347.50, subd. 8 definition of provocation does not govern it.

One overlap between the two systems is worth flagging for its clock. Minn. Stat. § 347.50, subd. 7 defines “animal control authority” as “an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction.” A claim against a public body carries the short notice period and the damages caps described in the government claims guide, which close long before the general limitation period set out in the deadlines guide.

What this page is not

It describes the definitions, registration conditions, continuing obligations, hearing rights, seizure provisions, and destruction provisions in Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50 to 347.565. It does not evaluate whether any dog meets a designation, whether an exemption applies, whether a local ordinance is based solely on breed, or what an animal control authority will do. Those are decisions the statutes assign to an animal control authority and to an impartial hearing officer, and the statutes give the dog’s owner a hearing to contest them.