Posted on 05/27/2018 12:40:34 AM PDT by Norski
Paid-for "certification" of service animals — bought online or anywhere else — never passed the smell test, and now it doesn't pass the legal test in Oklahoma.
Deanna Fields, executive director of the Manufactured Housing Association of Oklahoma, brought a new law to my attention after I'd reported difficulties surrounding service animals, federal fair housing law and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Gov. Mary Fallin signed H.B. 3282 May 1. It goes into effect Nov. 1. The law, by Rep. Chris Kannady, R-Oklahoma City, and Sen. Kim David, R-Porter, has received no media attention, despite recent violent dog attacks and increased scrutiny of certain breeds.
"Tenants saying their pit bulls are service animals by buying bogus certification over the internet will be assessed a penalty," Fields said in an email. "A number of states have (or) are in the process to address this abused issue. Proud to say we got ours passed!"
She said it came thanks to "collaboration with the apartment association and our manufactured home association. It also removes liabilities for landlords, which was a huge concern even in our manufactured housing parks."
I asked how the state law fit with the federal Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, since federal usually trumps state. . . . (more at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
I’d believe a Chihuahua over a pit bull any day. Pit bulls were bred for killing and not as a service animal.
I’ve yet to find a purse pet which actually performs a bonafide service. I’ve met quite a few pits who have been trained to perform a variety of needed services.
This is aimed at pit bulls in rental housing, but does affect all persons who purport their “pocket pooch” and purse lizard are service animals, or the ever-popular “support animal”. I believe that it will cut down on persons attempting to lie about their pet in order to receive privileges only allowed for legitimate service animals.
If one reads the whole article at the link, it appears as though the insurance industry is finally getting involved in the controversy. Perhaps it has begun to cost them money.
I think the first problem is that this is aimed at pit bulls in rental housing. ADA specifically forbids any discrimination against any breed of dog. Since the obvious intent is apparent to everyone, first time someone tries to use it, the courts are going to throw the law out as it applies to any penalties to the tenant.
Second problem is you’re thinking that companion animals have to do much of anything at all. All that’s required is a doctor’s note saying the animal might make the person feel more comfortable. It doesn’t even require the doctor to identify any disability or psychological issue which would be addressed aside from ‘comfort.’
Nor does the federal laws require the doctor to actually see the person in question to provide the note - hence why so many websites offer it for a fee. (Also there’s no limitations in federal law for the number of animals to be covered by such a note either.)
All this law will accomplish is opening a whole bunch of people to liability in lawsuits when they try to unilaterally enforce the provisions and possibly leave a property owner on the hook for any lawsuits over bites with zero liability being covered by the insurance companies.
The fix for this law is a) change ADA to permit requiring a demonstration of the service performed rather than simply a description of what service a dog will do, and b) permitting one companion animal which aids in existing in person treatment for a patient (thus nuking all the internet doctor’s note scams.) Both are actions which have to be taken at the federal level.
As for Oklahoma law, there’s little they can really do to protect landlords - the property itself is tasty security for any lawsuits. This might discourage a couple lawyers; I’m sure insurance companies are applauding the blanket release from liability which they’ll enjoy under this.
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the complete situation was perpetrated at the federal level for just this scenario.
I do agree that it can only be “repaired” at the federal level, - but only if one agrees that federal law should trump state law in this case.
I do not have enough information to have an opinion on this item at this time. Nor do I know how it will play out. It may very well be an unenforceable law. But I must applaud the effort.
but only if one agrees that federal law should trump state law in this case.
Federal law may only trump state law in very few LIMITED AND DEFINED situtations, found in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. All other situations also found in the Constitution are RESERVED for the STATES or the PEOPLE.
They should include documentation showing that the “service animal” has actually been trained to be one.
how calling it a purse reptile? how about a snake for a support animal.
My wife has a retired tea-cup poodle, purse dog. Because she could, she used to take it to her office where it politely stayed under the desk most of the time. Since she worked with university students the bestie was a good way to get them to relax a bit as most had no pets growing up in cramped HK apartments. “Baby” is now 12-years-old and it would be evil to take her on a plane as she is pretty fragile. We don’t take her anywhere much anymore and she is happy to lounge on the sofa.
Pit bulls are great affectionate animals. Train them to be killers and black labs will do that too.
“”They should include documentation showing that the “service animal” has actually been trained to be one.””
Interesting article dealing with the subject.
Fake service animals.
“how calling it a purse reptile? how about a snake for a support animal”.
Or out of a box of cereal
Obviously we need to tighten up legal qualifications for what we define as a service animal. Pit Bulls should not qualify. There are plenty of other less dangerous breeds to choose from.
and no, Pit Bulls are not just like any other kind of dog. They are responsible for a grossly disproportionate share of attacks and of fatal attacks on other dogs and humans.
I was a landlord once, and a fellow landlord friend of mine sent me an ironclad contract which I incorporated into my property. I even rented to Section 8, a single mom with four kids. At one point they decided to have an aquarium. During one of my inspections as per the Housing Authority in the state where the house was located I noticed the aquarium and brought the issue to Bear to the renter with a warning. You have one week to remove this aquarium - you are not in compliance with the contract that was approved by the Section 8 Housing Office, and I will have the Section 8 Housing Office come here to evict you and you will be out of this property in short order. That’s all it took I had the backing of the state. And the renter never again delineated from the contract.
I saw a guy in walmart with a pit bull service dog. The guy looked like a skinhead. Apparently he was attacked and knifed in California so he kept a pit bull as a “service dog” because he had PTSD. He had a card.
IF insurance companies can refuse to INSURE such dogs-—why do I have to rent to people with such dogs?
The renter has no capital investment into the property & I can be sued until I lose the property.
Knew a woman with a purse pet. Poor little thing never got any exercise. It was all a farce. She didn’t have any papers for it but no one had the nerve to tell her to keep it out of their shops.
Mine loved retrieving ducks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.