In Maine, a judge has ordered the euthanization of a Husky named “Dakota” under the State’s “vicious dog law.” Dakota, when not looking cute and cuddly, has a penchant for attacking smaller dogs. Dakota has killed one dog and maimed the replacement. For reasons best known only to him, the Governor decided to get involved and issued Dakota a full pardon. The article purports to report on the controversy but never attempts to resolve the issue. Five minutes on the Internet seems to provide the answer. Here is the story with a link.

Dakota, a 4-year-old Husky, was declared a dangerous dog in February 2016 when she got loose in Winslow and killed a smaller dog. Matthew Perry, her owner at the time, was ordered to keep her confined or on a short leash. However, Dakota got loose again this past January and went back to the same house, where she attacked the previous victims’ new dog.

Gov. Paul LePage granted a pardon to Dakota on March 30 after a member of the Humane Society’s board sent him a letter. His news release stated, “the dog ought to be provided a full and free pardon.” Judge-refuses-to-stop-euthanization-order-for-Dakota-the-dog/

The action against Dakota is a civil action. Dakota, being a dog, has no civil rights and is unable to form the necessary intent to be charged criminally. The Maine Constitution gives the Governor power to “Pardon” after conviction for all forfeitures and penalties (subject to such regulations as may be provided under the law).

The Maine Division of Adult Community Corrections lists additional criteria for consideration for parole. First, the language makes clear that a pardon is appropriate for those convicted of a crime. Dakota was not convicted of a crime in a criminal action. The dog was adjudicated in a civil proceeding. Second, there is a five-year waiting period before the clemency petition will be heard. If the petitioner is seeking to rectify judicial errors, then the petition will not be heard. The Governor’s Board on Executive Clemency may waive these guidelines.

D.    What guidelines have been established to determine whether a pardon petition will be heard?

1. Petitioners seeking a pardon will not be heard until five (5) years have elapsed from the date of completion of entire sentence, including any probation periods associated with the sentence.
2. Petitioners seeking a pardon for Operating under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor (OUI) will not be heard.
3. Petitioners seeking a pardon will not be heard if the Petitioner is seeking to rectify alleged errors in the judicial system.
4. Petitioners seeking a pardon for the sole purpose of carrying a firearm to hunt, or otherwise, will not be heard.
5. Petitioners seeking a pardon for the sole purpose of having the Petitioner’s name removed from the state’s Sex Offender Registry will not be heard.
6. Petitioners seeking a pardon for one criminal conviction when the Petitioner has one or more additional serious criminal convictions that are not included in the Petitioner’s application for a pardon will not be heard.
7. Petitioners seeking a pardon for the purpose of entry into Canada will not be heard. However, individuals with criminal convictions who are seeking entrance into Canada should contact the Consulate General of Canada for further information on reinstating this privilege.In exceptional cases, the Governor’s Board on Executive Clemency may waive these guidelines.

It seems clear the Governor does not have the power to “Pardon” Dakota. The judge got it right.

Another issue reported was the alleged ownership of the dog. At the time of the original judgment, Dakota was owned by one person. Ownership was then transferred to another person (within the family). Dakota then committed her second faux pas, that resulted in the judge’s order. The owner is complaining that he never received notice. Tough. The original judge’s order remained in effect despite the change in ownership.

The law is such that an offending dog is given one bite of the apple, so to speak. A second violation and the euthanization order comes into to effect. Transfer of ownership does not change the process. My take is that after the first incident Dakota became contraband and would remain so as long as the dog remained in Maine. (The dog would still be contraband if moved out of state, outside the reaches of Maine authorities).

Typical of journalism these days. The reporter may be able to identify a dangling modifier but hasn’t got a clue as to how things work. Not understanding leads to half-baked questions and blind acceptance of facts that may or may not be correct.

One last thought, it probably is not a good idea to break-in a new vehicle with a 3600-mile road trip.